Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions —

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): Before I answer the first question tabled to my right hon. Friend I should mention—as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and other hon. Members know—that my right hon. Friend has been delayed in the fisheries negotiations in Brussels and cannot be with us today.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman should be here.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I am glad that there is someone competent in Brussels negotiating on behalf of the British people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must now come to the first question, which is about the International Year of Disabled People.

Scotland

International Year of Disabled People

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received urging further provision to mark the International Year of Disabled People.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I have received letters from four hon. Members about the access sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and a few letters from individuals making specific suggestions as regards possible activities during the Year.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate last month's statement by his callous boss, the Prime Minister, to the effect that the disabled ought to do more to help themselves instead of relying on the Tory Government? Instead of clobbering the disabled by, for example, reducing the real value of invalidity benefit, industrial injury benefit and sickness benefit and increasing prescription charges fivefold, will the Minister give us an assurance that he will give increased resources to the health boards and to the local authorities to maintain and improve services for the disabled, including the home help service and specialist housing needs, which are under threat as a result of the reactionary policies of this Government?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I shall not refer to bosses. I have other adjectives than "callous" for the hon. Member's boss.
The Government have been in touch with the Scottish Council on Disability, the Scottish Paraplegic Association, the Scottish Committee on Mobility for the

Disabled, the Scottish Committee on Access and the Disablement Income Group. We have given £25,000 for the International Year of Disabled People. We are in touch—

Mr. Canavan: That is not even the Prime Minister's salary.

Mr. Fairgrieve: We are in touch with all the local authorities, and the total commitment in this area is £4·7 million.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) the splendid example of Grampian regional council, which has managed to keep its domestic rates increase at 11·4 per cent, but has still managed to increase the amount of money given to the disabled and handicapped? Would it not be a good idea if the hon. Member's council behaved in the same way?

Mr. Canavan: It does.

Mr. Fairgrieve: My hon. Friend is right. When we meet—and when the last Administration met—representatives of the disabled, those representatives always ask that party politics be kept out of these matters.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister said that there was a commitment of £4·7 million in this International Year of Disabled People. Of that £4·7 million, he said that only £25,000 was coming from the Government. Surely that means that the balance will come from local authorities. Does the Minister approve of what the Lothian region is spending on the disabled? Does he understand that we fully support the expenditure of that region? Will he take this opportunity to praise the Lothian region for its record in this area?

Mr. Fairgrieve: The less said about expenditure by Lothian region the better, but if I were responsible for spending money in that region, not only would I reduce it but I would spend it in different areas.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Since the Minister wishes to keep party politics out of the problems of the disabled, will he note that the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) about the problems of the disabled would include Scotland? If that is so, will he assure us here and now that the Scottish Office will give that Bill full backing?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I cannot say this afternoon what our position is on that Bill, which I read yesterday. It was not the Minister but the bodies that look after the disabled that asked for party politics to be kept out of this area.

Public Inquiries (Malpractice)

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public inquiries authorised by him were held in Scotland during 1980 to examine alleged malpractices by local authorities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): None, Sir.

Mr. Brown: Public inquiries always take place in special circumstances, but is not the time overdue for the Secretary of State to look into the well-known case of Mr. Walter Gunkel, a constituent of mine who suffered badly at the hands of Edinburgh district council? Is he not aware


that the council is challenging in the courts the findings of the independent arbiter, although that arbiter was agreed to by the council as well as by Mr. Gunkel? Is that not a disgrace? Surely a public inquiry is justified and the general public are entitled to know what has been going on, because at the end of the day they will surely foot the bill for the events in this part of the country under this district council, which, of course, as we knew—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very fair to the hon. Member but it will stop other hon. Members being called if long questions are asked.

Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He should appreciate that the Secretary of State's power to call for an inquiry arises only if a local authority fails to carry out its statutory duty. As yet, we have no evidence that that would apply in this case, but I understand that Edinburgh district council is actively considering what response it should make to the arbiter. We hope that this matter will be satisfactorily resolved.

Mr. Ancram: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there should be a public inquiry into the decision last night by the Labour group on Lothian regional council to make a rates increase of 50 per cent? Does he not agree that that can only lead to thousands of job losses in the region?

Mr. Rifkind: If that information is correct, it certainly represents an intolerable increase for the people of the Lothian region. I understand that there is a deep division on that recommendation within the Labour group in the region and I hope that more moderate counsel will prevail. However, I must warn the Lothian region that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to consider that a rates increase of that size suggested an excessive and unreasonable budget, it would inevitably result in the region losing a significant amount of rate support grant. Those concerned should bear that in mind.

Pay Beds

Mr. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pay beds currently exist in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland; and what he intends to do about this facility in the future.

Mr. Fairgrieve: There are 94 pay beds in Scotland. My right hon. Friend will consider any applications by health boards for his approval for changes in existing authorisations or for new authorisations for pay beds.

Mr. Adams: Would not the Minister consider it unreasonable if there were even one pay bed in Scotland in National Health Service facilities when we have ever-growing queues for the use of life-saving equipment and for life-saving operations? Will he consider issuing a statement to the House condemning the use of NHS facilities—beds and equipment—by specialists and consultants when they could be dealing with the queue of people in the NHS more rapidly by using those facilities to help them?

Mr. Fairgrieve: The answer to the last question is "No, Sir". On the hon. Member's claim that one pay bed is too many, this Government believe that, once people have paid their taxes, rents and rates, if they wish to spend their money on their own health, they are entitled so to do.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister take note of the widespread reporting in the press of the incident in the area

of Fife health board last year when a Mr. Spence misused facilities—the facts are not in dispute—because he was under the misapprehension that a private patient was involved? Will he take immediate steps to allay fears that this practice might have been widespread in Fife and the surrounding area? Will he meet me and my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) as soon as possible to discuss the matter?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Yes. I have had a letter from those three hon. Members asking me to meet them to discuss this incident in Fife and I intend so to do. The General Medical Council is investigating the case. However, before hon. Members get too heated, I should like to draw their attention to the letter in The Scotsman today from the honorary secretary of the Fife BMA, which begins:
I protest in the strongest terms at the reported remarks of Fife Members concerning the medical profession. Would they not feel ill-treated were Parliament to be so abused?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unreasonable to read letters in answer to questions.

Unemployment (Glasgow)

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest numbers and percentage rates of unemployed (a) adults and (b) young people in the Parkhead area of Glasgow.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): On 15 January 8,614 people were registered as unemployed in the Parkhead employment office area and the unemployment percentage rate in the Glasgow travel-to-work area, which includes Parkhead, was 14·2 per cent. On 9 October 1980, the latest date for which an analysis by age is available, 8,315 people were registered as unemployed, of whom 1,544 were aged under 18. Percentage unemployment rates are not calculated for individual employment office areas which form part of a travel-to-work area, or for particular age groups.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there are only two vacancies in the Parkhead careers office for those 1,544 unemployed youngsters and that his unbelievable complacency is a recipe for disaster unless he does something now as a matter of urgency? Will he consider making special provision for tackling the problems of youth unemployment in the east end of Glasgow?

Mr. Fletcher: There is no complacency on these Benches. We have made special provision through the youth opportunities programme and the GEAR project in Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the Scottish Development Agency has built and let over 70 factories in GEAR and that another 44 are in this year's programme. In addition, 500 new jobs are being created at Clyde Workshops Ltd. and it is hoped to double the number before the end of the year.

Scottish Exhibition Centre

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had on the siting of the Scottish Exhibition Centre; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend has not yet received a detailed proposal from the Scottish


Development Agency, but when considering it he will take into account all relevant factors, including alternative sites and public expenditure implications.

Mr. Ancram: Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling in the city of Edinburgh that the choice of a site near the city would bring much needed business not only to the city but to the region? Will he use all his influence to make sure that it is decided to site the centre as near Edinburgh as possible?

Mr. Fletcher: A number of hon. Members have made representations to my right hon. Friend about the siting of the exhibition centre and he will take them all into account before reaching a decision.

Mr. Steel: Bearing in mind the limits of public expenditure, will the Government also consider extending the Royal Highland Show ground rather than putting money into a completely new site?

Mr. Fletcher: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been some lobbying on that project, quite fairly. In considering the expenditure implications to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, my right hon. Friend will also take into account the possibility of attracting private funding.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Although the House will not be against exhibition centres, what will be left to exhibit, other than our nakedness, once this Government have finished their hatcheting?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not share the hon. Member's gloomy view of Scottish industry. He must know that, while there is unemployment in Scotland, new jobs have been created just in the last few weeks at a number of prominent Scottish businesses, including some in the West of Scotland.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Before my hon. Friend gives in to the grandiose pretensions of some local authorities, which seem to wish to saddle their ratepayers with an expensive white elephant, will he take into account the views of users of exhibition centres, who have said, among other things, that they would probably prefer to see the Kelvin Hall expanded and improved rather than a new venture undertaken?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In engaging consultants to survey the prospects for an exhibition centre, the Scottish Development Agency has taken that fact into account.

Mr. Harry Ewing: If the Minister does not share the gloomy prospect for Scottish industry, is he really not aware of his own record in closing down industry after industry in Scotland, of doubling unemployment in the short period of 18 months, and of the fact that there are fewer job vacancies for school leavers in the Parkhead area of Glasgow and in every other area of Glasgow? What is there to be cheerful about with that kind of record?

Mr. Fletcher: The question relates to Government support for an exhibition centre in order to try to improve the prospects of Scottish industries, and that is typical of the view we take of the prospects for Scottish industry, rather than the gloomy view of the hon. Gentleman.

Hamilton College of Education

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on further progress regarding his intention to close Hamilton college of education.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I very much hope that discussions will begin soon about arrangements for implementing our decisions.

Mr. Robertson: Does the Minister realise how disappointed hon. Members in all parts of the House will be with his wholly predictable answer? Does he also realise that if he continues with his intention to close Hamilton college of education in June of this year, proceeding willy-nilly with this newly declared intention—disrupting severely, as it will, the studies of many young people in the college, and the livelihood of many staff there—it will be nothing less than a disgraceful act of wanton educational vandalism?

Mr. Fletcher: I dispute the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with him on one important thing, and that is that the future of the students in mid-term and the future of the staff must be a prime consideration. With that in mind, I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his best offices to speak to the college authorities and encourage them to begin discussions. It is now almost mid-February, and it was on 6 August that my right hon. Friend announced his intention. In the interests of students and staff, surely the college should now begin to discuss their future.

Mr. John MacKay: I welcome my hon. Friend's appeal. Will he reinforce it and underline the great need for the college people, despite their unwillingness to accept the decision, to talk to the Government about the move, in the interests of the students? Will he start those talks, whether the other side wishes to have them or not? It is not only the students who want to know what will happen to them after June. In addition, students from other colleges in West Central Scotland who are in residence at Hamilton wish to know what their position will be after the closure of Hamilton college of education.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree with my hon. Friend that the people who are most concerned are the students. It is now high time that discussions began, to look after the interests of the students at the college and, as my hon. Friend has said, of the other students from other colleges and universities in Glasgow who use the residential accommodation at Hamilton.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that his handling of the whole affair has been such that in the Hamilton area and in the Hamilton college of education nobody now trusts him, and that that is why people will not speak to him and will not discuss things with him?

Mr. Fletcher: There is no possible foundation for that remark. I can understand the disappointment of the authorities and others at Hamilton that their college has to be closed, but if anyone in this House should understand the reasons for that closure it is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton.)

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister concede that the problems which have arisen since 5 August have been largely of his creation? There was the unhelpful statement


which he made to the students prior to his Radio Clyde broadcast, when he said that it would be better if they had fewer teachers anyway. Will he concede that the betrayal of the teachers and the staff of the colleges has soured the atmosphere completely? If he is to close the colleges, will he undertake the responsibility for padlocking the gates himself, as the responsibility lies on his head and not on the officials of the colleges?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are totally unhelpful to the students and staff at Hamilton. The hon. Gentleman has some responsibility, as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, to try to use his influence in the best interests of the students and in encouraging them to look after their own interests by asking the college authorities to discuss these matters with Ministers.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, following the publication of the Stodart report, if he is now prepared to look again at local government reorganisation with a view to introducing a one-tier system.

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend and I believe that the further unheaval, countervailing disadvantages, and the uncertain costs of further radical reorganisation would not be justified by any possible benefits.

Mr. Lambie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be received with disappointment by the ratepayers of Ayrshire, including the Secretary of State's own supporters in Ayr and Prestwick, who remember his many pledges and promises before and during the last election to the effect that the Tories, if elected, would reorganise local government and break up such gigantic regions as Strathclyde? When will the right hon. Gentleman carry out his election promises and bring local democracy back into local government?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will do himself a favour by consulting our election manifesto, he will see that there was no commitment to a further reorganisation of local government. There was a commitment to improve the existing system of local government, and we are at the moment considering the very constructive proposals of the Stodart committee, which are designed to suggest various ways in which the existing system could be significantly improved.

Mr. Pollock: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Stodart committee accepted the contention that Moray district could go it alone on the basis of most-purpose status? Will the Minister therefore undertake to have a fresh look at that proposal?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall look with interest at all the reccomendations made by the Stodart committee. No decisions have yet been reached, but as soon as they are my right hon. Friend will announce them to the House.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware of the unsatisfactory road conditions and the frustration caused through the operation of the social work services in Scotland due to the wrong division of functions between the districts and the regional authorities? Will he agree that the minuscule report of the Stodart committee will in no way alter the position? Will he therefore consider the

appointment of a further Royal Commission to examine in depth the need for the reorganisation of local government in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The Stodart committee was able to look into the question whether a transfer of certain responsibilities from region to district or vice versa would be appropriate. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, its main recommendations dealt with those functions for which there was a joint responsibility upon district and region. These are areas which the Stodart committee has recommended could be most sensibly rationalised.

Mr. David Steel: Is it not surprising that the Undersecretary should slam the door so firmly in the face of any discussion of a one-tier system in Scotland? As he talked about countervailing disadvantages, would he care to set out a financial discussion paper showing what the supposed advantages would be?

Mr. Rifkind: It goes without saying that if, after such a short period since the regional and district councils have been established, there were to be a further reorganisation, that would inevitably involve very substantial cost and effort for what would be, at best, hypothetical advantages. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would disagree with that assessment. My right hon. Friend has asked for comments on the Stodart committee's findings by the end of March, and would be very happy to look at any specific arguments or recommendations that the right hon. Gentleman might like to put.

Mr. Lang: Will my hon. Friend give particular attention to the recommendations of the Stodart committee affecting tourism? Does he agree that any move to encourage tourists away from the South-East of England and up to Scotland is to be encouraged? May we look forward to Government encouragement to this important industry in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend's observation that anything that can be done further to attract tourism to Scotland is highly desirable. We shall give the particular matter that was referred to in the report of the Stodart committee the same consideration as is given to the other matters, and we shall let the House know our views in due course.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that one oral question is hardly an adequate opportunity to discuss these complicated issues? Will he guarantee that there will be a debate, or will he at least use his influence to ensure that there will be a debate upon the future structure of local government and on the Stodart committee recommendations in the very near future? Is he aware that the manifest discomfort with which his initial answer was received on the Conservative Back Benches illustrates the need for such discussion?

Mr. Rifkind: I am certain that at some time it will be appropriate to have a discussion and a debate on these matters. Whether it should be done before or after my right hon. Friend has indicated the Government's response is a matter that can be considered. I am sure that the usual steps can be taken by the Opposition if they wish to ventilate the suggestion concerning a debate.

Rating System

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any amendments to the rating system in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill includes several proposals by the Government for amendments to the Scottish valuation and rating code.
For the longer term, our review of the rating system is in progress, but I cannot say at present what its outcome will be.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not part of Tory policy to abolish the rating system? Is it not extraordinary that after two and a half years of Tory Government no major suggestions have been made about helping local government finance, which is in the most intolerable muddle?

Mr. Rifkind: The Conservative Party indicated that for the longer term it believed that the abolition of the rating system was desirable, but that in this Parliament the emphasis must be on reducing direct taxation. That was made clear in our election manifesto. An internal review of the rating system is at present taking place, and we hope that it will lead to substantial changes and improvements but that is a matter that I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await.

Mr. Bill Walker: Before considering any changes, will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the greatest deterrents to inward investment in Scotland is the level of rates? Does he agree that the projected level of rates over recent months has been enough to deter anyone from coming to Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. An unjustifiably high level of rates will not only be unpopular with ratepayers but, perhaps even more important in the present climate, will undoubtedly destroy hundreds if not thousands of jobs.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain by what authority he has set himself up as a non-elected third tier of local government in Scotland by reserving unto himself personally the power to fix rates and to engage in crucial local decision-making under the miscellaneous provisions Bill?

Mr. Rifkind: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I neither have nor will have any such power. Nor will my right hon. Friend have any such power to prevent a local authority from fixing its rate level. However, it is justifiable that the Government should be able to indicate how much financial support they give to a local authority. That is the basis of the provisions in the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and for that we need make no apology.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's review covers the whole of the rating system? Is he aware that there is widespread concern that the Government might abolish domestic rates while leaving, or perhaps even increasing, the burden on industry and commerce?

Mr. Rifkind: I can assure my hon. Friend that the review to which I have referred includes the issue of industrial rating.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that there is a great deal of anxiety in Scotland about high rates? Will he acknowledge that responsibility for high rates lies with an inadequate rate support grant settlement given by him and his colleagues to local government? Will he bear in mind that if there is to be any fundamental change in the rating review, it will be necessary to make an early announcement, after the enactment of the miscellaneous provisions Bill, about the next quinquennium? When will we hear definitely whether that it is going ahead, whether it is being postponed or whether it is being varied?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must await an announcement, which will be made as soon as possible. He has come up with a nonsensical suggestion about the rate support grant settlement. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that only yesterday the Grampian regional council was able to indicate that its rates increase next year would be limited to 11·4 per cent., which is substantially below the present level of inflation. If a local authority such as the Grampian regional council can do that, there is no excuse for any other responsible local authority having a rates increase that is substantially greater.

River Pollution

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to section 1(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951, he will seek to prevent further pollution of Scottish rivers and of the River Girvan in particular.

Mr. Rifkind: I am satisfied that river purification authorities take all the measures open to them to prevent pollution of Scottish rivers. On the specific question of the River Girvan, I am fully aware of the situation and am being kept in touch with developments. A solution to this problem is still being sought.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister not aware of the anger in Ayrshire because the Secretary of State has not only refused to take any action over the issue of the River Girvan but has also refused to meet a deputation of local people? In the light of the High Court's decision yesterday and in the light of his statutory responsibility, will the Minister agree to an early meeting with the National Coal Board to discuss action to deal with the poison in the River Girvan?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that my right hon. Friend's statutory responsibilities are confined to the promotion of river purification boards and other matters of that sort. He has no specific anti-pollution powers. These are the responsbilities of the regional council. I am aware of the decision yesterday of the High Court, which upheld an appeal by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advoate against the National Coal Board. I hope that the board will be taking into account the judgment that has been made against it and will be considering its own responsibilities in the light of that judgment.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend recognise the considerable co-operation that has been given by agriculture in Scotland towards preventing pollution of rivers, especially when one bears in mind the considerable cost to the private individuals concerned?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I am happy to acknowledge that agriculture has made that contribution. It is much appreciated.

Mr. John MacKay: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) to the ranks of the hunting, shooting and fishing brigade? Does my hon. Friend realise that salmon, which represents an important economic factor in the countryside of Scotland as well as bringing pleasure to many in Scotland, is under considerable pressure both in British waters and abroad? Will he take every possible step to ensure that when it comes into our rivers it is not killed by pollution?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) is known for his sympathy with the interests to which my hon. Friend refers. I acknowledge the force of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Maternity Beds

Mr. McTaggart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on plans for provision of extra maternity beds in Glasgow following the reduction in the number of beds which will be available at the Royal maternity hospital when necessary renovation work is carried out.

Mr. Fairgrieve: The provision of maternity beds in Glasgow is a matter for the Greater Glasgow health board.

Mr. McTaggart: Is the Minister aware that, due to the fact that there is no starting or completion date for the proposed Royal infirmary, over £1 million of public money will have to be spent on the present inadequate facilities at Rotten Row?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I am aware of that position. The Greater Glasgow health board has not been in touch with my Department to say that there are not sufficient maternity beds available in the board's area. The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says. Although phase 2 of the building of the Glasgow Royal infirmary is mooted, there are no plans for when it will be started. The hon. Gentleman knows that and so does the Glasgow health board.

Mr. David Marshall: Is the Minister aware that he is being hypocritical about the whole project? Is he aware that on 3 February the Scottish Development Agency estimated unemployment as being about 26 per cent.? Will he not put his money where his mouth is and give the go-ahead to phase 2 and the new maternity block of the Royal infirmary, thereby creating many much needed jobs as well as a much needed facility?

Mr. Fairgrieve: The GEAR project cannot be considered along with the plans of the health board of Greater Glasgow area or those of any other area.

Unemployment

Mr. Michael Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures in Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On 15 January 1981 seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 252,300 or 11·2 per cent. The problem of unemployment will be solved by keeping to our objectives of controlling

inflation and restoring industrial competitiveness. At the same time we are greatly expanding the help available under the special employment programmes.

Mr. Martin: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he prepared to come to my constituency, in which the only area of expansion is the employment exchange, and speak to the unemployed in my constituency and tell them that the Government's work is successful? Is he prepared to do that, or will he have the guts to resign?

Mr. Fletcher: I have no objection to visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency, meeting his constituents and explaining to them, if he does not, the real reason for the high level of unemployment in Britain.

Mr. Henderson: There is widespread concern about unemployment in Scotland. The fact is that industrial help is particularly loaded in favour of Scotland generally. Will my hon. Friend take particular note of the dissentient view in the Stodart report, which would leave with district councils the duty and reponsibility of dealing with industrial matters?

Mr. Fletcher: There is one thing of which I am aware in dealing with my present responsibilities and that is that there are too many who are in on the act of industrial development in Scotland.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that since he became a Minister there has been a catalogue of catastrophe all along the line? Does he realise that there is a factory in my constituency that will close in June? In addition, there is the Talbot catastrophe. Does he not think that it is a travesty of justice and a downright disgrace that the Secretary of State is not present to answer these questions from the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that Scottish fishermen would agree with the hon. Gentleman's last comment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in Brussels today defending the interests of Scottish fishermen, and he is doing that to the very best of his ability. The hon. Gentleman's complaints about unemployment in his area are well understood on this side of the House, but he should also know that the Government have given hundreds of millions of pounds to the British Steel Corporation and to British Leyland and are planning a gas pipeline into Scotland from the North Sea. There are 1,400 new jobs at Torness, and in recent weeks private enterprise in Scotland has been able to achieve a great number of orders against competition from overseas. Therefore, there is also good news with regard to Scottish business, and not just the appalling gloom suggested by the Opposition.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is grossly misleading to paint a picture of unrelieved industrial gloom when exports are running at £1 billion per day and when more new companies are starting up than ever before? Certainly far more new companies are starting than there companies are closing down.

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Anyone looking at the Scottish industrial scene today, while deploring the unemployment in traditional industries, must be encouraged by the new investment that is taking place in oil-related activities and electronics.

Mr. Millan: Does the Minister realise how ridiculously complacent are his answers today, given that we have the


worst unemployment figures since the 1930s and we have had the calamitous announcement today about the closure of Linwood, which is another betrayal of the West of Scotland? Does he not realise that there is now an air of desperation in Scottish industry and that only a wholesale reversal of Government policies can hold out any hope at all for the people of Scotland who are desperately anxious and worried about the lack of effective action by the Government in relation to Scottish industry?

Mr. Fletcher: The only desperation that I note is on the Opposition Benches. While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of worry and concern in Scotland, I find that the reasons for this, and the fact that the whole of the Western world is in recession, are better understood and accepted among the people of Scotland than by the Opposition.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

Mr. Fairgrieve: The Government recognise that the industry continues to face considerable difficulties. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend on 5 February, we have brought forward the review of the industry's economic position which was due when the present aid scheme ends in March.
As regards the fisheries negotiations, as hon. Members now know, the negotiations which began in Brussels on Monday continue today, and I assure the House that my right hon. Friends will report the outcome of these latest negotiations as soon as this is possible.
I am also surprised that Opposition Members are surprised at the whereabouts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend accept that all reasonable people fully understand the importance of my right hon. Friend being in Brussels today to fight for Scottish and British fishermen? Does he further accept that all sides of the House will fully support the strong line that my right hon. Friends are taking in rejecting out of hand the French proposals and the Commission's so-called compromise proposals? Can he say how long the current talks are likely to continue?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House what reasonable people feel on this matter. At the present moment the Council of Fisheries Ministers is still in session. The Ministers will be going out to meet their own delegations, the council will meet again later this afternoon, and there will possibly be a statement tomorrow. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friends are fighting extremely hard on behalf of the British fishing industry.

Mr. Grimond: Have the Government received any information from the Dutch Government in response to the inquiries that we understand they are making there about the allegations that the Dutch are dumping fish in this country, contrary to Common Market regulations?

Mr. Fairgrieve: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am, of course, an expert on the subject of fishing. These negotiations are still continuing, but until we settle the

CFP the only quotas are those being applied voluntarily by each country. There is, therefore, no action that the Government can take in this respect at this moment.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister take note that the reports coming out of Brussels so far are in no way reassuring about the nature of the settlement that the Government may be contemplating? Is he aware that the Opposition expect the Government to keep to the pledges that they have repeatedly made in the House and that, if they do not, any agreement reached will be completely unsatisfactory and, I believe, will be rejected not only by the fishing industry but by the House?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I do not think that there is any evidence at all to suggest that the feelings coming out of Brussels at the moment are not reassuring. The right hon. Gentleman knows the position as well as any of us. He knows the political difficulty that we have with the French Government and their elections, but I assure him that the Government will not sell Britain's fishermen down the river—if I may put it in that way.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that the Minister, who is answering for my right hon. Friend today, will be aware that the real problem in the fishing industry, which has arisen in Fraserburgh and Peterhead in my constituency, concerns the import of certain fish as against the prices that are being obtained on the quay. Will he take active steps to ensure that the only fish imported is that which is required for the processing factories and ensure that any other white fish imports are banned completely?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I accept what my hon. Friend says, up to a point. Investigations are taking place on this matter at this moment. With due respect, however, I do not think that the correct response is for our fishermen not to go out and fish.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that there is great anger and concern in the fishing industry over the reported remarks of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the effect that he was seeking to minimise the demands of the French within the 12-mile limit? Is he aware that if that was conceded in any way, apart from the other aspects of the settlement, it would be regarded by the fishermen—and their view would be shared by me—as sheer treachery?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Some of those views would be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it would be wrong to anticipate negotiations that are going on at the moment and about which my right hon. Friends will probably be speaking to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware of the enormity of the disaster facing the Scottish inshore fishing industry? Will he make it clear to his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that if the talks break down we shall expect, not just a statement outlining the talks, but a plan of national measures to save our own industry?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I am surprised that the hon. Member should make such a statement. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that as an earnest of the Government's intent towards the fishing industry in the present financial year we have given £17 million to the industry, over half of which went to Scotland.

Mr. Myles: Despite some of the comments made by Opposition Members, I am sure that the whole House will wish my right hon. Friends success in the present talks in Brussels. Will my hon. Friend ensure that if, by chance, the talks break down, unilateral conservation measures will be undertaken to make certain that there are fish stocks to be fished in the future?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Again, it is not for me to anticipate the decisions of my right hon. Friends in Brussels. May I say, however, that we are very fortunate, particularly in Scotland, in having two such competent Ministers arguing Britain's case. As regards the question of a breakdown in the talks, may I say that there will either be a breakdown or a satisfactory solution for Britain.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister seems to be implying that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not competent, but perhaps we should not go into that. Will he comment on the allegations that fish which has been officially withdrawn from the market in the Netherlands is appearing on the market in the United Kingdom at throw-away prices? How does he propose to stop such illegal trade?

Mr. Fairgrieve: As I have said, and as the hon. Member knows full well, the whole position is currently being investigated.

Dundee

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make special provisions for the economic regeneration of the city of Dundee.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: We have already done so. Dundee receives the highest priority in terms of its special development area status, and the Scottish Development Agency is concentrating substantial resources there under its £6 million development scheme.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister says that he has made special provision for Dundee. However, will he kindly explain to the citizens of Dundee why the Government's economic regeneration has led to 14,000 people being unemployed and an increase of 1 per cent, in unemployment in one month? Does he not accept that the Government's present arrangements for regional development are not working in the city and that something more is needed to break the cycle of decline that is now taking place? It is his responsibility to do something. When will he act?

Mr. Fletcher: Every possible action is taking place with regard to Dundee. But, clearly, Dundee cannot be isolated from the economic situation which exists throughout the rest of Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. The main recipe for the success of employment and other measures in Dundee is the revival of the British economy, which our policies are aimed at bringing about.

High Court Sittings (Edinburgh)

Mr. Peter Fraser: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what increase there has been in the number of High Court sittings in Edinburgh in the last 12 months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): In 1979, the High Court sat at Edinburgh on 19 occasions for the purpose of hearing criminal trials and

on 25 occasions as the Court of Criminal Appeal. The corresponding figures for 1980 were 22 and 29 respectively, but the court days in 1979 were only 74 and in 1980 were 108.

Mr. Fraser: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that that is a quite unacceptable increase in the number of days spent in the criminal courts in Scotland? On the Edinburgh side, is that not something of a failure to indicate how serious the problem is? Is he aware that if one looks at the figures for the Glasgow High Court one will see that the increase in the number of trials and days spent in court have been significantly greater?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, I agree. No one is more anxious than I am to demonstrate how serious the criminal situation is. In Glasgow, the number of court days in 1979 was 269, and it went up in 1980 to 338. There is a large increase in the incidence of crime and it is something that we are determined to master. I hope that as a result of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act we shall succeed.

Mr. Dewar: I congratulate the Solicitor-General on answering the question which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) meant to ask but did not ask. Is it not strange that the crime figures are rising so fast under a Conservative Government, who stood on such a blatant and shameless law and order platform? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look not just at the number of sittings but at the organisation of High Court sittings to try to get away from the present ludicrous situation—with which he will be familiar—in which it is impossible to tell when a case will start, whether it will be delayed, or whether it will be brought forward, with the resultant inconvenience to solicitors, counsel, members of the public, witnesses and jurymen and at an enormous cost to the public purse in terms of legal aid and waiting days?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No one is more anxious than I am to prevent inconvenience to witnesses, solicitors and judges. I think that I have reversed the order of inconvenience mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I want to make it absolutely clear that under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act there are now provisions which enable those who are instructed to take instructions to act on those instructions and to give timeous pleas which will prevent the attendance of witnesses and inconvenience. If solicitors are responsible in that matter it will make a great difference and result in a great saving.

Police (Establishment)

Mr. Lang: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland to what extent the increase in police strength has affected the reporting of crime to Procurators Fiscal.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In 1979,288,203 cases were reported by the police to procurators fiscal. In 1980, this figure rose to 327,204. This was undoubtedly due in part to the increase in police strength.

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he not agree that as a result of the implementation of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act as it affects sports grounds, there has been less crime to report, as evidenced by last Saturday's events at


Murrayfield? Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that that was the second most satisfactory outcome of those events last week?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am delighted to say that last Saturday was a great event, not only at Murrayfield but in Dundee. There were three reports from Murrayfield, one of an attempt to get drink into the ground and two of breach of the peace, which is the lowest that there have been for a long time. There was no trouble at Dundee and no missiles were taken into the ground.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Solicitor-General explain why the designated area did not include the car park at Murrayfield, when assurances were given by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, during the Committee proceedings on the Bill that it would be so designated?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know that the hon. Gentleman is always anxious to ensure that car parks are properly policed. However, that car park does not happen to be part of Murrayfield. Therefore, it was not relevant that it should have been so designated.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted with the results in Dundee, where there was peace on the day. Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act can be effective only if we have adequate policing, which means police on the beat?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I agree. Nothing is more effective than the policeman on the beat, who knows local people and local conditions.

Mr. Michael Martin: Is the Solicitor-General aware that a constituent of mine was detained by the Strathclyde police for three days before he stood trial and was refused bail? If I submit the details of my constituent's problems to him, will he be prepared to investigate the matter?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I would be delighted to investigate the matter. It is not competent for someone to he detained for three days.

Crown Office (Staff)

Mr. Ancram: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the present number of administrative staff employed by the Crown Office.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The total strength of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service is 855. Of these, 315 are in grades within the administrative group.

Mr. Ancram: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that this is an increase on the figure which he inherited at the general election? If that is so, will he explain why?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, I can explain exactly why this is so. It is an increase of 4½ per cent. The increase in the number of cases with which the staff have to deal is 13½ per cent. That is productivity.

Mr. Dewar: I extend my sympathy to the Solicitor-General for that exhibition of disloyalty from the chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland. May I ask about the rather strange situation which I understand exists in the

Court of Session administrative department, where Lord Cowie's recommendations on divorce law reform are not being implemented purely and simply because two administrative officers cannot be appointed? Is that true? If so, what will the Solicitor-General do about it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I doubt whether it is true. If it is, it is not my responsibility.

Offensive Weapons

Mr. Pollock: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many cases on indictment were pending in December 1980 involving the use of offensive weapons.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In December 1980, 19 High Court indictments for crimes involving the use of offensive weapons were served pending trial. The weapons allegedly used included an axe, broken bottles and knives. In so far as indictment cases to be heard before a sheriff and jury are concerned, no separate records are kept.

Mr. Pollock: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that these figures are disturbingly high? Does he agree that they reinforce the wisdom of the Government in introducing special measures in last year's Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act to deal with that rising menace?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I agree entirely. If that measure prevents one assault or one death it will have been worth it.

Terrorism

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many of those people charged with an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 in Scotland during 1980 were subsequently convicted of an offence under a different Act.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No one was so charged on indictment or complaint and convicted of a different offence.

Mr. Brown: Is not it the case that the "Glasgow Two", namely, Michael Duffield and Kirsteen Crosbie, were charged under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and were later convicted under a different Act? Is that a sign that the Government intend to harass people on the Left such as those who sell newspapers at football grounds? That is patently obvious to me. The Solicitor-General must explain why this case came about in the first place.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I did not hear the end of his question. I welcome the fact that he is here today to listen to the answer to the question he tabled for our last Question Time, when he was present but did not care to ask it.
The two persons in question were not charged under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. They were arrested under that Act. The purpose of their activities was to obtain publicity, which the hon. Gentleman is giving them. They were members of the revolutionary Communist group sympathetic to the aims of the IRA, just as the hon. Member is sympathetic to a


revolutionary Communist group elsewhere which is sympathetic to the attitude of the Russians. The hon. Member should have better judgment than to suggest in these circumstances that there is prejudice on the part of the prosecuting authorities in Scotland against anyone of any political party.

Mr. Speaker: Private notice question. Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there a precedent for a private notice question to be put to

the Secretary of State for Scotland and for the Secretary of State to refuse to turn up to answer it? The question involves the loss of 5,000 jobs in Scotland. Therefore, is it right for him to use as an excuse the fact that he is away on business with the Common Market, an institution that has sold Scottish car workers and Scottish fishermen down the river?

Mr. Speaker: There are such precedents.

Talbot (Linwood)

Mr. Allan Stewart: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about today's announcement that the Talbot factory at Linwood will be closed in June?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has had to remain in Brussels to represent the Scottish interest in the vitally important discussions on the common fisheries policy which are now in train.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While there is some understanding of the problem facing the Secretary of State for Scotland over his absence in Brussels, there is none whatsoever when the Secretary of State for Industry is here, and could answer but does not. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not decide who answers questions.

Mr. Fletcher: As you will know, Mr. Speaker, the question was addressed to my right hon. Friend.
I very much regret the loss of jobs to West Central Scotland which will follow the closure of Linwood announced by the Talbot Motor Company earlier today. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Industry and I have been in close touch with the top management of PSA/Citroen and Talbot about future manufacturing operations in the United Kingdom, particularly at Linwood, for some time. We have explained in detail the Government assistance available for new investment projects in assisted areas, both through regional development grants and selective financial assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act. We have expressed the strong hope that PSA would maintain manufacturing in the United Kingdom to the full extent envisaged in the declaration of intent, to which the company subscribed in 1978. Despite a significant improvement in labour relations and productivity since PSA took over at Linwood, it was the company's decision, against the background of very severe market competition, serious financial losses in 1979 and 1980 and the high investment costs of introducing new models, that it could not maintain production at the plant.
It emerges clearly from the company's statement today that its productive capacity in the United Kingdom considerably exceeds its present and prospective market share and that concentration of its facilities, rather than expansion, was the only realistic course open to it.
Apart from the 4,800 jobs which will be lost at Linwood itself, there will be consequences for suppliers. Linwood has, however, been operating at a low level of production for many months and the local sourcing of components is limited.
The company has, however, made it clear that it intends to maintain a substantial presence in the United Kingdom, concentrated in the Midlands. An important investment proposal to introduce another model at its Ryton, Coventry plant is at an advanced stage of planning. The company is confident of the secure future of its plants at Stoke, Dunstable and Luton. My right hon. Friend and I are considering urgently, in advance of the shutdown at Linwood by the end of this year, what measures we can

realistically take to generate new employment in the area. My right hon. Friend and I shall, for this purpose, be seeking urgent discussions with the local authorities concerned, the Scottish Development Agency, the Scottish TUC and the CBI in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: In the light of this economic catastrophe, does my hon. Friend agree that it is tragic that the 1978 agreement with PSA has proved to be so full of loopholes as to be worthless? Will my hon. Friend broaden his discussions about new jobs with all the interested parties? Does he agree with me that the existence of a skilled, responsible work force in West Central Scotland ought to be of considerable attraction to Nissan?

Mr. Fletcher: I agree with my hon. Friend. We shall broaden our discussions in every way possible, including any prospects of persuading Nissan—if it finally decides to come to the United Kingdom—to take up the facilities available at Linwood. However, my hon. Friend will know that Nissan's specification is for an 800-acre green field site. My right hon. Friends are fully aware of the contents of the agreement between the Government and PSA/Talbot. That matter has already been raised with PSA.

Mr. Bruce Millan: With no personal disrespect to the Under-Secretary, who has been left to carry the can, and even taking account of the difficulties of the Secretary of State for Scotland, it is utterly deplorable that a statement of this seriousness should not be made by a senior Minister, particularly when the Secretary of State for Industry is present on the Treasury Bench. He should be making this statement.
Does the Minister realise how disastrous today's announcement is to the West of Scotland, which has already been devastated because of the effects of Government economic and industrial policies? Will he also note that we treat with great scepticism what is said in the statement about the Government's efforts to persuade Talbot to stay in the United Kingdom, specifically at Linwood? We also note the defeatist nature of the statement. Labour Members remember that the Conservative Party voted against the Labour Government's original rescue of the Chrysler operation in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), only last week, in a question to the Prime Minister, told us how buoyant the Scottish economy was. He should tell that to the workers in Linwood now. Does the Minister note that the agreement with Chrysler, which was taken up by Peugeot when it took over the obligations in 1978, included the most specific pledges to keep Linwood as well as the other British manufacturing plants open? If it had not been for those pledges, the considerable sums of Government money given to the company would not have been given. We expect those pledges to be kept by the company now.
Does the Minister realise the sense of bitterness that there will be among the workers at Linwood who have co-operated in every way possible with higher productivity and so on during the past few years? They now see all their hopes and efforts dashed by the statement.
Is the Minister aware that if there is any feeling in Coventry that what has been said today is optimistic for those workers I should like to disabuse them of that, because if pledges about Linwood can be broken, pledges


about Coventry can also be broken? We may be seeing today the first step towards the complete withdrawal of the Talbot operation from the United Kingdom.
Finally, talk about alternative jobs in the West of Scotland is so much hot air. In Scotland, we shall not accept today's announcement. We shall fight to see it reversed.

Mr. Fletcher: That was very much a rallying call from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), but he has said nothing constructive or positive. I agree with him that this is disastrous news for the West of Scotland. That is fully appreciated on both sides of the House. The workers of Linwood, who have been on a tightrope, not just for the past few months but for the past few years, will be deeply disappointed at the decision that has been reached.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Industry have been fully involved in discussions with PSA over many months. There is no justification for the right hon. Gentleman, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, to criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for deciding to remain in Brussels and conduct negotiations on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry—negotiations that may well bring benefit to Scotland—instead of coming to the House today for presentational reasons or some other gimmickry. Most people in Scotland, examining the options facing my right hon. Friend, would agree that he made the right decision by deciding to stay in Brussels today.
The right hon. Gentleman's scepticism about the negotiations with PSA about the prospects of further investment in Scotland are unjustified. I was present at the discussions, and I do not believe that any offer of Government funds would have induced PSA to make a new and substantial investment at Linwood, for the simple reason that it is suffering from over-capacity.

Mr. David Steel: In view of the calamitous nature of the statement for Scotland, surely the Minister is under obligation to tell us more about the discussions between his colleagues and the company. In particular, will he say how much public money has gone into the company, and with what strings attached, over the past few years?

Mr. Fletcher: The conversations with the company were perfectly straightforward. It was very much a matter, on our part, of ensuring that the company was fully aware of the Government financial support that would be availabe to it in the event of its deciding to make a substantial investment in a new car at Linwood. For reasons of over-capacity however, it decided that it could not proceed along those lines. As for the extent of Government funding, apart from the usual Industry Act assistance for projects, the Government have met some £60 million of losses incurred in the United Kingdom business of Chrysler.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose�ž

Mr. Speaker: Order. Although this is an extension of Question Time, I propose to call two more hon. Members from either side before we move on.

Mr. Barry Henderson: As one who has always bought Linwood-produced cars as long as they

have been available, may I ask whether this tragedy is accounted for, on the one hand, by the preference of our people to buy other types of cars and, on the other, by trade union militancy over many years which seriously affected the effectiveness of the Linwood plant in the early days and disgraced Scotland's generally excellent industrial relations record? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that PSA will not be able to frustrate the occupation of that factory by any other organisation that might be able to give a fresh, new private enterprise start?

Mr. Fletcher: The question of the future ownership of the plant will be a matter for negotiation between the company, the Government and other parties. Clearly, PSA/Talbot is suffering from the highly competitive market. On productivity, the company has told us that since it took over the management of Linwood productivity has increased by 20 per cent.

Mr. Allen Adams: Does not the Minister agree that the central question to which we must now address ourselves is what the Government are going to do about this problem?

Mr. Buchan: Nothing.

Mr. Adams: You are sitting there like a rabbit that has been frightened by a stoat—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the compliment was intended for me.

Mr. Adams: I apologise, Mr. Speaker; I was referring to the Minister. I shall repeat the question. Does the Minister agree that he and the Government are behaving like Pontius Pilate—they are washing their hands and walking away? They are in no way attempting to retain the company at Linwood or to put real and meaningful pressure on the company to stay. When will the Minister start to apply real pressure?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member is well behind the times. For many months my right hon. Friends and I have been discussing with the company the prospect of major investment in a new model at Linwood. We have been making it clear to the company that Government assistance would be available for that purpose. We have now reached the stage where the company has decided, because of overcapacity that it has no commercial reasons for making such investment, and has decided to withdraw.
For the future I have already indicated that my right hon. Friend and I will pursue every possible avenue to find a new company and a new industry to take over the plant at Linwood.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), in his criticism of the Government, seemed to have forgotten the serious strike record of the employees under Chrysler which fortunately improved during the time of Talbot. In view of that improved productivity, does not my hon. Friend agree that there are adequate green field areas in and around Linwood to suit the requirements of Datsun which could take over the factory and retain the labour force that is threatened with redundancy?

M. Fletcher: That would be a matter for Nissan to decide, but we shall certainly bring the point to its attention. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the fact that in previous years productivity and labour relations at Linwood were bad. I am happy to repeat what the


company said in the statement today. In the past couple of years there has been a 20 per cent. improvement in productivity and a good improvement in industrial relations. That will be helpful to the Government and others in trying to find new owners for the premises.

Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister aware that for 16 years I have fought to preserve that factory and the town of Linwood? His weak acceptance of the company's decision will spell the death of the town as surely as happened in Jarrow in the 1930s. Does the Minister have any sense of the bitterness and anger that exist? Does he know that male unemployment in Strathclyde is running at 17½ per cent., and that the closure will push that to 19 or 20 per cent. in the Paisley and Linwood travel-to-work area?
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government have a responsibility here because they were a co-signatory of the declaration of intent, although I admit that that did not come from the Conservative side. I have heard too much from the Conservatives indicating a willingness to destroy the factory. However, there was Government involvement in the declaration of intent, and that promised a continuation of manufacturing at Linwood. When in the name of God will the Government face their responsibility and do something?

Mr. Fletcher: We have been facing those responsibilities since we inherited the British economy from the Labour Government in May 1979. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the first company to go into the Linwood factory was Rootes, and it went bankrupt. The second was Chrysler. It has reduced its international business substantially. Now Talbot is pulling out. That is some measure of the difficulties of producing cars successfully at that plant. Across the river is the former John Brown yard. When John Brown pulled out, UCS took over. When UCS left, Marathon took over. Therefore, that yard had three lives as well. However, a fourth was added last year when we were able to negotiate the French company UIE into the yard. These matters are relevant in looking at the efforts of both Governments to find new owners for these businesses when, unhappily, a decision of this nature is made.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reconsider your earlier decision, which I know must be final if you do not reconsider it, about the contraction of Question Time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed extra time for this private notice question. If the hon. Gentleman had watched the clock as I did he would have seen that I allowed 16 minutes. Normally I allow 10 minutes, or less, on a private notice question, which is an extension of Question Time.

Mr. Donald Stewart: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. This matter, which is of desperate concern for Scottish employment, and which also reflects on employment in other parts of Britain, should not have been the subject of a private notice question. There should have been a statement from a Government Minister.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has not raised a point of order but has expressed his point of view.

British Steel Corporation (Finance)

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on borrowing powers of the British Steel Corporation. I will be introducing today the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Bill 1981, which will increase the British Steel Corporation's borrowing powers by £500 million. The Bill will enable the corporation to continue in operation on reaching the current statutory limit of its existing borrowing powers in the course of the next few weeks.
As the House will know, the Government received the British Steel Corporation's corporate plan shortly before Christmas. Decisions on the plan involve the consideration of very large sums of taxpayers' money, and will affect the position of a number of private sector companies whose areas of operation overlap those of the corporation. My right hon. Friend will be making a further statement to the House when the Government have reached their conclusions on the corporate plan. At that stage, as foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, the Government will introduce a further Bill, which will deal with the future of the corporation and its financial reconstruction.
In view of the urgency of the corporation's need of increased borrowings, and the essentially interim nature of the Bill that I am introducing, I hope that the House will facilitate its swift passage.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is the Minister aware that we are astonished that the Secretary of State is not making a statement today about the MacGregor plan? Is he further aware that the delay will create further uncertainty in the steel industry, which is already in a difficult position? What part have his Back Benchers played in the Secretary of State's withdrawal of his statement today? What pressure has been put on him to get him to change his mind when he had given a firm commitment that he would make a statement this week?
Does not the Minister agree that we need a plan for steel that includes the private sector? He should make the MacGregor plan and the private sector proposals the subjects of joint discussion. The trade unions and the management should be brought into the discussions. That is the way to proceed. Is the Minister aware that he could take action immediately, to help not only the BSC but the private sector? I refer to the need for action on energy costs. The Government should give support—as is the case in many other countries—to the steel industry. In view of the Minister of State's meagre statement, when will we have a full statement from the Secretary of State?

Mr. Tebbit: The House will receive a full statement from my right hon. Friend when we have completed consideration of the MacGregor plan and its implications. Energy costs and all other matters will be taken into account in the consideration of the plan. My right hon. Friend has not withdrawn his statement. I am making an interim statement today and my right hon. Friend will make his statement when the considerations are complete.

Sir John Eden: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that any discussions taking place with the private sector will lead to genuine joint venture and partnership arrangements, and that any funds that may


be voted by the House for the British Steel Corporation will not be used by it to eliminate competition in the private sector?

Mr. Tebbit: My right hon. Friend has raised matters that are relevant to our consideration of the MacGregor plan. Where there are joint ventures, the aim is that they should be undertaken by viable campanies that can stand free both from their private sector parent and from the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that this delay is causing concern among steel communities? Does he agree that the steel industry is too important to be left to the tender mercies of Tory Back Benchers, whether from Sussex or Bournemouth? May I draw his attention to the splendid performance of the Llanwern steelworks during recent months? Does he agree that those efforts need encouragement, and not the vindictive comments that they appear to be receiving from the Conservative side of the House?

Mr. Tebbit: I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in drawing attention to the great achievements of the management and the work force at works such as Llanwern. That is exactly what we intend should happen throughout the whole of the British Steel Corporation. There is no sense of vindictiveness. The hon. Gentleman and the House must recognise that huge sums of public money are involved. It would not be right to approve a plan without a thorough investigation of the way in which that money will be spent.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend say for how long the additional £500 million borrowing power will enable the British Steel Corporation to continue trading? What is the cost of the MacGregor proposals? No figures have been mentioned so far for the price tag of the plan. When a full statement is made, will the Secretary of State say how much the British Steel Corporation is requesting?

Mr. Tebbit: When a full statement is made there will be a full account of the sums involved. My hon. friend is curious to know how long that money will last. It will be about six months, as matters stand at present. But circumstances can change, both for better and for worse, in such an industry during the present time.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the Minister realise that in cities such as Sheffield a great question mark is hanging over the entire steel industry? Does he recognise that the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about energy prices is especially relevant, because every firm in the Sheffield and Rotherham area is facing catastrophic energy prices as a result of the Government's policies? Following current events at Linwood, every steel worker is wondering whether, this week, or next week, the Government will shut down major parts of the steel industry. What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do about bringing forward the meagre £500 million, so that there is enough money for the British Steel Corporation to continue production?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman should remember that a meagre £500 million is lp on income tax. He should have some sense of proportion.

Mr. Peter Emery: Before passing a Bill to provide an additional £500 million for the British Steel Corporation, will not my hon. Friend consider what the final commitment will be? Is it not correct that the MacGregor plan is requesting a capital reorganisation which, in total, will cost £4·5 billion?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend should not confuse the capital reconstruction, which may involve writing off money that has already been spent, with the commitment of new moneys. It would be as well to keep the two matters separate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would have preferred to bring forward a single Bill to cope with the problems of the BSC running against its borrowing limits and the longer-term reconstruction. However, it was not possible to bring forward the whole of that reconstruction plan quickly enough. Without this Bill, the BSC will run out of money. That is why I am introducing the Bill as an interim measure.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Is not the real problem that both the private and public sectors of the steel industry have reached the same conclusion about the sector in which maximum investment is required, and which, therefore, will produce maximum return on capital? How does the Minister hope to maintain a balance between a State-owned sector and a private sector and also maintain fair competition in that all-important part of the industry?

Mr. Tebbit: As always, with great skill and understanding.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that some of the money must go to those joint ventures between private steel makers and the BSC that his right hon. Friend intends should come about? Given the chronic liquidity position of the private steel makers that have so far been mentioned in this connection, some of what the Minister himself described as taxpayers' money will go indirectly to them. I hope that his right hon. Friend is listening, because he told some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), just before Christmas that it was his intention that the private steel makers should play a dominant role in the mergers. Will the hon. Gentleman now assure the House that in any such mergers it will be the BSC that fills the dominant role?

Mr. Tebbit: The mergers will be constructed in the best commercial interests of the companies and in the best interests of those who are employed by them. It is not necessary, therefore, that—as the hon. Gentleman implies—the public sector should have the dominant role. The record of the past 10 years suggests the opposite.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the private sector has had to face severe competition from the BSC, which is moving into what has hitherto been the private sector's field? What discussions is he having with it to ensure that State money does not provide unfair competition with a struggling private sector, much of which is in Sheffield?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend raises one of the crucial points of difficulty in the steel industry, but to a large extent the difficulties in both the public and private sector are caused by the extremely low prices being set throughout Europe by the considerable over-capacity there. It would be possible for both sides to refuse to meet such low prices, but the consequence would be that they


would lose volume of production, lose their customers, and run into even heavier losses. This is a wider issue than mere competition between the public and private sector in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Morris: Why did not the Secretary of State make the statement? Is it because he is finding it difficult to reconcile his dogma, the needs of the public sector, and the pressures of the private sector? How many Conservative Back Benchers with private interests saw the right hon. Gentleman before the statement today? Should not areas such as mine, which have gone through the anguish of the slimdown and lost thousands and thousands of jobs, be given security of tenure now? Is it not time the public and the private steel industry were allowed to produce the steel that this country needs?

Mr. Tebbit: It would be singularly foolish if my right hon. Friend were to keep four other dogs in the Department and do all the barking himself, all the time. We share the labour between us, in good Socialist style.
There is no question of worries on the part of my right hon. Friend about dogma. These matters are being dealt with, as always, in accordance with the practical policies that we put forward at the general election.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the 13 years since nationalisation the BSC has lost £1,500 billion in accumulated losses apart from investment? The private, independent steel companies have made a profit of £700 million over the same period. Therefore, will my hon. Friend make it a firm condition of the provision of the extra money for the corporation that it is put into a special account to be used only for redundancy and restructuring, and not for competition, which might well put the private sector companies out of business?

Mr. Tebbit: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. He must also understand that in the present state of the market in Europe, and the wider world beyond, if we were to prohibit the BSC or, if we had the powers, any private sector company from selling at a loss, we should condemn it to closing down its capacity on a massive scale. The matter is not quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. But I am fully aware of his anxiety and am as anxious as he is that State money should not be used to undermine companies that have a long and successful record in the industry.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Is the Minister aware of the oft-expressed view of senior officials of the BSC that the future of the steel industry in Scotland depended heavily on the Talbot car plant? In view of the announcement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a few minutes ago, precisely how does the hon. Gentleman propose to help the steel industry, and other industries, in view of the difficult situation in which we now find ourselves?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we heard the news of the proposed closure of the Linwood plant this morning. Therefore, this would be swift time in which to react to the problem of what will happen to the steel industry in Scotland. It is one of the matters that we must consider as we look at the corporate plan.

Mr. Peter Hordern: What does my hon. Friend propose to do for those private sector

steel companies whose activities not only do not overlap with the BSC but are in direct competition with it, whose productivity has always been better than that of the BSC, whose profitability has never been in question, and whose ability to compete with European manufacturers of steel is not in question, but which now find their existence put in doubt by subsidised competition from the BSC?

Mr. Tebbit: I have been discussing the problems of a number of private sector companies with their representative in the past few weeks.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I am not surprised.

Mr. Tebbit: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not surprised, because a large number of jobs depend on those companies. I hope that he is as concerned about private sector jobs as he is about public sector jobs. Unhappily, although my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) says that some of the independent companies are well capable of meeting the competition from Europe, at present that can in many cases be only on the basis of making losses in the short term, and that adds to the difficulties.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Is the Minister aware that there will be keen disappointment in the steel industry that the statement on restructuring was not made this afternoon? Is he further aware that the Government's continual dilly-dallying on the issue will mean further indebtedness through rising interest charges on the debt already incurred?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the disastrous consequences of the Beswick review, which was a political bodge job and damaged the steel industry. We are still picking up the bills for it. When sums of this sort are being asked for, and when we are dealing with an industry with as many problems, world-wide, as the steel industry has, I do not think it unreasonable that we should take more than a couple of months at the most to get the matter organised and get it right. We received the plan only shortly before Christmas.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Given that there have been so many disastrous attempts to restructure the industry since nationalisation, does my hon. Friend accept that many of us on the Conservative Benches wish him to take a careful look at the plan and get it right? Will he please take some encouragement from today's announcement that steel export markets are beginning to pick up, and that if we can get the matter right agreat future lies ahead for the corporation?

Mr. Tebbit: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is only proper that we should take enough time to get the matter right. I am greatly encouraged by the news today of the success that Mr. MacGregor is having in selling steel overseas. That is in no small measure due to the manner in which much of the work force has responded to his leadership—the manner that, as the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, is typified—I hope—by what is happening at Llanwern.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of replies that I have received from the Under-Secretary in which he says that the Secretary of State will not use the powers available to him under section 5(3) of the Iron and Steel Act 1975? When there are


arguments about actions taken by the corporation under the corporate plan, will the right hon. Gentleman intervene and use those powers to check that the corporation is taking the right route?

Mr. Tebbit: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is "No".

Mr John Bruce-Gardyne: Does my hon, Friend recall that he expressed the hope that the House would give a speedy passage to these additional borrowing powers? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, given his replies to my hon. Friends the Ministers for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) and Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), that that speedy passage will be facilitated by whatever assurances my hon. Friend can give to the effect that the borrowing powers will not be used to enable BSC to underprice the private sector in a manner that the private sector—which has to rely on its own profitability—cannot challenge?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall do the best that I can to meet the proper concern of my hon. Friends and of the private steel companies, which are an important part of the industry.

Dr. Ifor Davies: Is the Minister aware that the British Steel plan—which he states the Government are still considering—involves more than 1,000 men being made redundant in the most efficient tinplate plant in South Wales, namely, Velindre? Is he further aware that the works committee has submitted a work-sharing scheme that will reduce the number of redundancies by at least 50 per cent.? Will the Government consider that, and investigate the scheme before any conclusion is reached, so that employment may be safeguarded in that area?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has made the case that there should be deep and careful consideration of all the implications of the plan before it is approved by the Government and put before the House.

Mr. Roger Moate: My right hon. Friend refers to an overlap of interest between the public and private sectors. Is that what we used to call competition? Even if one accepts the BSC's need for massive support, and even if one accepts the difficulties of protecting the private sector against unfair competition, is it not incumbent on my hon. Friend to spell out, before the extra loan is approved, exactly how he intends to ensure that the money is not used for an aggressive under-pricing policy by the BSC against the private companies that remain outside the schemes under contemplation?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has spoken about overlapping and competition. Competition arises in the areas of overlap between the two. There is no difference between us about the use of words. My hon. Friend asked for an undertaking. These matters are being considered in relation to the corporate plan. It might be wrong—or even impossible—to pull out bits of the corporate plan and to put them before the House before the whole plan is placed before the House. However, I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I am as concerned as he is.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Does not the Minister realise that his hon. Friends are trying to set up an artificial and unnecessary conflict because they wish to

make debating points about the public and private sectors? Does not he accept that the Government are clearly neglecting their duty to safeguard the interests of both sectors of the steel industry and of the steel-using industries? Does he accept that the Government have failed to deal not only with energy pricing but with coking coal subsidies, rail freight subsidies, interest rates and, above all, the international rate of sterling? That neglect is damaging the whole of British manufacturing industry.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman seems a little out of sympathy with his colleagues. Some hon. Members want to rush the decision as if the sums of money were a matter of no import, and as if only trivial amounts were involved. Others seem not to care about the interests of private sector employees. They are clearly regarded as a lesser breed than employees in the public sector. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that we had to consider the interests of the whole industry. We are doing that, and that is why a statement has not been made today. It is taking longer than we had hoped.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us do not consider him a lucky dog to have new responsibilities, but are grateful that he has assumed them? Does he further accept that the private sector of the steel industry is glad that it has been given a further breathing space in which to submit an alternative plan? Does he agree that the private sector cannot accept that the BSC should compete with it on a subsidised basis and should be put in charge of negotiations on the future structure of steel, or that the taxpayer should enable the BSC to buy up those companies because they are in distress?

Mr. Tebbit: Whether extremely low market prices are, as some people say, caused by predatory pricing by the BSC, or whether they are caused primarily by the state of the market, it would be wrong to allow the private sector to die just because it does not have access to the same sort of funds as the BSC. It would not be right suddenly to start to subsidise the whole of the steel industry. We must consider how the two sides can conduct their affairs so that they both survive and become profitable.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the statement include any reference to the attempts being made by the BSC to create new jobs in the run-down steel areas? Is the Minister aware that in my constituency 8,000 steel jobs have been lost in 11 months? Will he consider placing the Datsun-Nissan plant on the banks of the River Dee? Will he bear in mind that my area has suffered far too many job losses?

Mr. Tebbit: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is tragic that so many jobs should have been lost in such a short period in order to make the steel industry competitive in world terms. I know that the hon. Gentleman and those who represent constituencies in that area will not be found lacking in their efforts to bring the attractions of the area to the notice of the Nissan company. Ultimately, Nissan will make the decision. It is important that the company should have the best possible chance of the long-term success that others have failed to achieve.

Mr. Barry Porter: Given the previous statement made on the demise of Linwood, what will happen to Ravenscraig? My hon.


Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and others were told that it was necessary for Ravenscraig's survival that Shotton should go. Does my hon. Friend realise that if Ravenscraig goes now, I shall find it difficult to explain it to those who have lost their jobs in North Wales and Merseyside?

Mr. Tebbit: Those matters might well be explored during the debate on the larger issue of the corporate plan. That debate will give a better indication of what may happen to some of those plants.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister agree that no matter what plans are prepared, or which poodle happens to come to the Dispatch Box to announce them, both the public and private steel sectors will be imperilled unless Government policy is changed? Does not he agree that there has been a great delay? Will he give an assurance that that delay did not take place in order to soften up the BSC, and that the little-subsidised, world-breaking and modern plant in my constituency will not be imperilled and will not lose its State majority shareholding?

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman imagines that one could ''soften up" Mr. MacGregor by taking a few extra days or weeks to consider the plan, I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman has never met Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that we recognise the difficult tasks involved in any consideration of the steel industry? Does he further accept that we are glad that he pointed out that the private steel industry is as important as the nationalised sector? The House recognises that the waterfall must go on. However, is private industry to be placed in a two-pronged situation? Does my hon. Friend agree that if money is poured into British steel it will make it more difficult for the private steel industry to compete? If something is not done about phoenix 1 and phoenix 2 it will mean the death of private steel. Many of us would find it unacceptable if we ended up with the phoenix being burned and the albatross being left alive. It is wrong that private steel, which competes and has tried to be profitable, should suffer while the nationalised part of the industry gets away with it.

Mr. Tebbit: I followed my hon. Friend very carefully through his ornithological comparisons. I can only say to him what I have said to others of my hon. Friends and to a number of Opposition Members, some of whom I know have a considerable concern for the private sector. It is our intention that the British Steel Corporation should not use funds to destroy the independent sector of the British steel industry. Equally, my hon. Friends will have to understand that there will continue to be grave losses made by and grave dangers to all parts of the steel industry until the market is restored to some sort of sanity by the removal of excess capacity in Europe as a whole.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope to call all those hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye, but I hope that their questions will brief.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does not the Minister realise that some of his replies and the attitudes of a number of those hon. Members sitting behind him lead Opposition Members to believe that the Government and their supporters wish only for the death of the British Steel

Corporation? Will he now assure the House that that is not the intention? Will he also answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), who suggested that Government policies of high interest rates and high energy costs had put the steel industry in this position? Does the Minister appreciate that the Opposition wish to see a thriving steel industry in both the public and the private sectors, and full employment, whereas the Government and their supporters seem to belong to a party of unemployment?

Mr. Tebbit: It is entirely unjust of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) to suggest that any of my hon. Friends is interested in the death of the British Steel Corporation. Certainly I am not. I should hardly be introducing a Bill requiring a further £500 million of public borrowing for the BSC if it were for its death. It would be one of the most expensive funerals on record at that price.
As for the general conduct of the economy in relation to the steel industry, I know that the Opposition cannot accept that the conquest of inflation should have priority over all other matters of policy. The plain fact is that however much inflation was increased in the time of the last Government, that only increased unemployment, as well. We have no intention of following those policies again.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister now assure the House that the Government will provide the same kind of financial help as they are providing for British Steel to private steelworks, such as Duport Steel, in my constituency—steelworks that are efficient, productive and under considerable strain at the moment, through no fault of their own?

Mr. Tebbit: I must give the right hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer as that which I gave to my hon. Friends, who in large numbers put the same point to me. These are matters that must be considered in the context of the plan for British Steel and, indeed, for the industry as a whole. I am not sure that we can necessarily bind ourselves to support with public money every steelworks in the country.

Mr. David Ennals: When will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bring forward this statement? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency the firm of Boulton and Paul, which is more than 200 years old, and is recognised to be efficient and competent, has just had to declare several hundred redundancies? Does not the Minister agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that he has to bring forward a plan covering the whole of the steel industry—public and private sectors? When will he come forward with a statement of policy?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman can have been listening earlier. I told the House that my right hon. Friend would bring forward the Government's response to the British Steel Corporation's plan when we had completed our consideration of it.

Mr. Orme: When?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman asks me when. I have told him when. It will be brought forward when it is ready. He will have to exercise a little patience. It is not


unreasonable to ask him to do that, bearing in mind the magnitude of the issues, which he emphasised, and the sums of money involved, which I have emphasised.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the amount of money poured by him and his colleagues into the British Steel Corporation and other nationalised industries is such that if no more than 0·1 per cent. had been given to our fishing industry only five years ago it would have remained a viable industry? Are not we betraying our pledges to the electorate in 1979?

Mr. Tebbit: No. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder whether the Minister can confirm into which area of the Tory Party's original policy this statement and the one in a fortnight's time will fit. Does he accept that the cold winds of monetarism, which have blown holes in the British Steel Corporation, are now beginning to shatter the private steel sector? Was it not thought originally that as a result of the ratchet being shifted away from the public sector the leaner and fitter private sector would benefit? What has happened to that? Will the Minister confirm also that the Government are launching these little lifeboats in answer to all the demands from the private sector? If he intends to make another statement, as undoubtedly he does, would not it be a good idea, to put the record straight, to make a statement about how much assistance is being given to the private sector, thereby contradicting Tory Party policy?

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps I may say first to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom, sadly, we have missed for some time, how glad I am, personally, to see him back and how much we all enjoy his flow of smooth and urbane wit, to which we have become accustomed over the years.
Coming to the point of the hon. Member's question, the statement that my right hon. Friend is to make will fit, in every detail, into the policy on which we fought the general election.

Mr. Orme: May I press the Minister to tell us when we shall get the full statement? He must be aware that Mr. MacGregor, appointed by the Secretary of State for Industry, said before Christmas that it was essential to have an early reply. If he feels that it is important, why is it being delayed? Will it be days, or weeks? I believe that the House is entitled to know.
If the Minister wants to assist both the private and the public sectors he could take action about imports, not least those from West Germany, which has a heavily subsidised steel industry and heavily subsidised coking coal. Action could be taken in that regard.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) keeps repeating questions to which I have already given the best answers that I can.

Mr. Orme: They are not good enough.

Mr. Tebbit: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. MacGregor is perfectly happy about the course of events in the Government's consideration of the plan. I can assure him that he has no need to expect my right hon. Friend's statement this week. I cannot go further than that.
As for imports from other parts of the Community, the right hon. Gentleman knows that his own Administration—although he was not concerned directly with these matters—faced similar demands during their five years in office. They also faced similar constraints on their freedom of action.

Anglo-Canadian Relations

Mr. Bruce George: In view of the important business that is to follow, I shall be brief. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating relations between Britain and Canada.
The issue is specific because it relates to the relationship between Britain, on the one hand, and the Federal Government and the provincial Governments of Canada, on the other. The matter is of great importance in that it is essential to preserve good relations between the two countries. The issue has become increasingly urgent because relations have deteriorated during the past few weeks. Our high commissioner has been withdrawn from Canada—coincidentally perhaps, one week after he made a statement that caused something of a minor furore. We have a curious situation in which the Canadian high commissioner is apparently alleging that communications are being intercepted, and is offering advice on how to deal with the Leader of the Opposition and hon. Gentlemen.
The matter is becoming critical, and I hope that this House of Commons, which at the moment is very much an innocent bystander, will be involved. Decision-making in foreign affairs has historically been the prerogative of the Government. It is important, at a time when so many things are happening to the detriment of Anglo-Canadian relations, that the matter be debated in this Chamber so that the situation can be clarified. If that is not possible, I hope that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Lord Privy Seal will make an urgent statement to clarify the situation in the hope that such a statement will soothe the deteriorating relations between this country and our Canadian friends.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before noon today that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating relations between Britain and Canada.
The House will have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, but he knows that, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I do not doubt its importance, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Talbot (Linwood)

Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by Talbot United Kingdom of its intention to close the motor car factory at Linwood.
I know the problems that face the House, so I shall be brief. I am more than aware that a state of anger is not necessarily the best atmosphere in which to approach the intricate rules of Standing Order No. 9. I plead guilty to being angry.
The earlier statements of the Minister of State, Department of Industry, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are extremely relevant to this matter, particularly the fact that the Minister of State said that he learnt of the steel decision only this morning. Either he knew about it or he did not know about it. If he did not know, what must have happened is that on one day discussions took place with the company at the level of the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The whole world was awaiting the outcome of those discussions. The following day, the Minister of State gave us a courtesy opportunity to report back on the discussions. He said that the board was to meet the parent company, that it would take on board what had been said by the Government, and that a decision would be made.
This morning I received from the company a letter which was posted yesterday, announcing the closure of Talbot. The timing is curious, because the company reached a decision before even reporting back to the board. It is a very curious set of events. Either the company was discussing the matter honestly with the Government or it was not. If the company was prepared to consider, how could it have reached the decision before it reported back to consider it? Or had the company already told the Government that it intended to ignore the representations? What a picture that gives of the British Government when a major company does not even listen to their views. That, surely, is what must have happened.
Three factors are involved in Standing Order No. 9. First, there is the matter of urgency. If my request is granted, it will presumably mean a debate tomorrow. Tomorrow's business is the Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill which, among other things, will allow the Government to assist private education in Scotland and provide money for assisted places in Scottish education. There is not a single person in Scotland today who would not say that Linwood should have priority over that.
The issue is important to the whole of Scotland, not only to my town of Linwood. It is not just one motor car factory. It is the motor car industry in Scotland and it is the new kind of industry which Governments have sought over the past two decades to develop in the areas of heavy industry which are now being run down. It is ominious when a decision is taken as rapidly, brutally and brusquely as this decision has been taken.
I shall not comment on the absence of the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The facts speak for themselves.
This town of mine was built for this factory. It was a small village 15 years ago. The village was developed into

the town of Linwood precisely to provide homes for workers who were brought there to maintain the factory. It is the death of a town that we are considering.
We must view the situation against a background of 17·5 per cent. make unemployment in Strathclyde and of 14 per cent. male unemployment in the small travel-to-work area of Paisley and Linwood. If we are to lose two-thirds of the factory, and we assume that the two-thirds come from the travel-to-work area, the unemployment figure will be increased at a single stroke from 14 per cent. to 20 per cent. It is untinkable. We have had other closures in Scotland about which we fought bitterly. I have fought for 16 years on behalf of this factory and I do not intend to stop fighting now, neither do the people of Linwood.
In the declaration of intent which was signed by the company, there was one significant paragraph. It says that the parent company—that is, the PSA—
will also ensure that plans to introduce a four-door derivative of the Alpine at Ryton are implemented and that future model programmes take particular account of the need to replace as soon as PSA and Chrysler United Kingdom consider feasible, the Avenger and Sunbeam cars at Linwood with models which offer the clear prospect of using the capacity of this facility to the fullest possible extent.
The pledge has been fulfilled to the extent of killing the factory.
We are discussing a major industry. It involved a specific factory of a new kind that we sought to bring to Scotland. It is a factory which was brought there by Government action and has been saved by Government action and Government investment. I now ask that the House makes a decision about it. If the Government will not accept the responsibility for the matter, we shall have to force the responsibility upon them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by Talbot United Kingdom of its intention to close the motor car factory at Linwood.
I and the House listened carefully—[Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) ever managed to control himself I should fall out of the Chair with surprise. He mistakes bad manners for wit. [Interruption.] Order. I am dealing with a very important matter which affects people's jobs. I have to give my decision. If the hon. Gentleman does not remain quiet he will drive me to take other drastic action.
I have listened with care to the disturbing statement made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) about the closure of another industry in his area. I realised that he was speaking under some emotion and therefore allowed him to say several things that he normally would have been able to say only if I had granted the application.
Having listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's representations, I have to rule that the matter does not fall within the provisions of Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

IRON AND STEEL(BORROWING POWERS)

Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Prior, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Norman Tebbit and Mr. Michael Marshall, presented a Bill to increase the limit on the aggregate of sums borrowed by, or paid by the Secretary of State to, the British Steel Corporation and sums borrowed by the publicly-owned companies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 65].

Air Accidents (Compensation)

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove limits on compensation payable to the dependants of those who lose their lives or are injured in accidents involving aircraft flying to or from the United Kingdom, established by the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and associated legislation.
The Bill seeks to right the injustice that confronts the dependants of those who lose their lives in air crashes. The injustice is in the limits on liability and compensation, under the 1929 Warsaw convention and the associated protocols and legislation enacted since that date, given to dependants of those who lose their lives in accidents involving aircraft.
Few, if any, air passengers, particularly package holiday-makers, when responding to the call that the aircraft is ready for boarding, think about the level of compensation that their dependants might receive if a terrible tragedy befell the aircraft, and rightly so. The British and international aviation industries have a proud safety record. However, because the public are unaware that there is a ceiling on liability and the amount of compensation available for loss of life in such circumstances, Parliament should be ever vigilant to ensure that dependants receive the justice that they are entitled to expect.
The Warsaw convention under which the ceiling on liability and compensation is imposed is a shambles. It reduces compensation to a lottery. It is a riddle. I need only record the multiplicity of maxima for compensation to justify that assertion.
Under the Warsaw convention and the Hague protocol of 1955 the maximum compensation available is £9,500. Under the 1966 Montreal IATA agreement, flights to and

from the United States have a maximum compensation liability level of £34,000. British airlines have a maximum liability of £25,000. Those amounts are only a fraction of the damage that can be claimed under the British law of negligence if an individual loses his life in a bus or rail crash. If a man of about 30, earning about £10,000 a year, loses his life in a bus crash, his dependent wife and three children might expect to receive damages of about £100,000. A man recently lost his life, and in an action against British Rail his wife and dependent family received damages of about £170,000. Had those two individuals lost their lives in air crashes, the maximum that their dependants might have expected to receive would have been £25,000, £9,500 or, at the most, £34,000.
An even greater anomaly is that the dependants of an aircraft pilot and crew who are killed are in no way inhibited by the limits of the Warsaw convention and the associated protocols. The dependants of a pilot with a salary in excess of £20,000 a year might expect to receive compensation of around £200,000.
Successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have sought to raise the level of compensation, and legislation that comes into effect in April will raise the limit to £56,000—but that level is six years out of date. It comes from the Montreal protocol of 1975. Fifty-six thousand pounds might seem a reasonable level, but it in no way compares with the amount of damage that dependants might expect to receive under the British law of negligence.
The Bill seeks to restore the right of individuals to have damages determined by the British courts. Alternatively, I seek the re-establishment of the Warsaw convention, with realistic levels of compensation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles R. Morris, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Bernard Conlan, Mr. Tom McNally, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. George Morton, Sir Donald Kaberry and Mr. Stephen Ross.

AIR ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION)

Mr. Charles R. Morris accordingly presented a Bill to remove limits on compensation payable to the dependants of those who lose their lives or are injured in accidents involving aircraft flying to or from the United Kingdom, established by the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and associated legislation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 February and to be printed [Bill 67].

Housing and the Building industry

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government's housing and construction policies, which have made new homes for sale and to rent scarcer than for generations, have driven up the costs of buying and renting a home to higher levels than ever before, and have resulted in post-war record unemployment figures in the construction industry.
Britain today faces its gravest peace-time housing crisis for more than half a century. The construction industry is at its lowest ebb for many years. The Government seek to blame everyone but themselves for the ills that we are suffering. They seek to blame world conditions, oil prices, the wicked trade unions and anyone or anything that they can think of. However, for this crisis in housing and construction none of those excuses is available. The willing and active instigator of Britain's housing disaster now sits on the Government Front Bench. The cause of Britain's housing crisis is the Secretary of Stale for the Environment.
No doubt, when the Secretary of State speaks we shall be regaled with the formula to which the House is accustomed—fiddled figures that will not stand up to a moment's examination, phoney comparisons with the record of the Labour Government—all the paraphernalia of a shifty politician in a fix, which we have come to know so well, if not exactly to love. None of his usual strategems can dispose of the stark facts. No one has spelt out those facts in language so lurid as that employed by the building employers" organisations, the very bodies that campaigned so assiduously and expensively for the return of this Government. Those organisations are now horrified at what their lavishly financed propaganda has brought about.
The president of the House Builders Federation, Mr. Lynn Wilson, said the other day that the shortfall in new housing output in 1980 was disastrous and that a housing shortage of crisis proportions was developing. He went on:
We are no longer talking about theoretical housing shortages or surpluses, but the danger of a real housing shortage beginning to affect society's conscience and comfort.
In its survey published the day before yesterday the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors says that the smallest firms are faring the worst. It gives this warning:
firms have been forced to break up skilled teams and to shed the operatives and staff they have tried to retain in anticipation of future orders… This is a situation which bodes ill for any future recovery of the economy as a whole. We would urge the Chancellor… and the rest of the Government…to consider how the money currently being paid to the industry's unemployed could be used positively.
The federation estimates that last year new public sector orders other than for housing were at their lowest for 21 years. It says that the proportion of firms reducing

employment has doubled in the last three months to 82 per cent., and that more than half of the industry's plant is lying unused.
The National Federation of Building Trades Employers reported much the same thing in its survey published three weeks ago. Both federations, joining together in their Budget memorandum for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, state:
All the indicators of construction workload and employment point to the worst post-war recession in the industry. This will severely and permanently damage the industry's long term capacity, both in skilled labour resources and specialist expertise …the present inadequacy of investment by both public and private sectors in new construction, renewal and maintenance will place our economy even further behind its competitors. The roots of this problem lie in (a) the apparent need for even this Government to resort to capital rather than current cutbacks to meet public expenditure targets, (b) the sudden imposition of disruptive capital moritoria on public capital spending, (c) the failure to provide adequate and balanced incentive for private sector investment in construction and (d) the disincentive to business investment of high interest rates …
This Government have particularly under-estimated the damage to the economy of their swingeing housing cuts, the crisis growing under the ground in our neglected sewerage system…
The federations estimate that by next year total new work completed by all construction bodies will be at only 60 per cent. of the 1970 level, that public investment in roads, bridges, sewers, schools and hospitals will be only half of the 1970 level and that public new house building will be no more than a quarter of the 1970 level. They go on:
Insofar as the decline in new work represents the deferral of essential investment in better factories, infrastructure and housing, then it only serves to increase their eventual cost and reduce efficiency.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman's friends are saying about him and his policies. It is different from the sort of material that those two federations, when they combined in the CABIN campaign, distributed before the last election. I have them here—the leaflets, the stickers and the carrier bags which mutely call "Keep Britain's Builders Free". Those carrier bags are now useful only as receptacles for Tory broken promises to the builders, who are now free—free to go bankrupt. I also have the balloons which proclaim the same message: "Keep Britain's Builders Free". I shall leave it to the Secretary of State to blow them up. He has more reserves of wind than the rest of us.
There were also posters in that campaign. One of them said that the results of the Labour Government's policies on the building industry would be more public intervention, less efficiency, higher costs, inevitable losses, more taxation and fewer jobs. Every one of those dire prophecies has been fulfilled, but by a Tory Government and a Tory Secretary of State. I shudder to think what CABIN will say on its posters, carrier bags and balloons at the next general election, when presumably it will be campaigning enthusiastically for the return of the Labour Government who will provide it with the work of which it is now so starved.
Not only the builders are facing a slump, but companies which produce the materials used by the building industry. Cement production is at its lowest since 1963. Brick production is at its lowest peace-time level since records were kept, almost certainly the lowest level this century.
A survey by the British Woodworking Federation reports that over half its firms showed a reduction in their labour force in 1980. One-third were on short-time


working and over 40 per cent. were affected by the moratorium on public housing investment. One and all, the old CABIN mates agree that this damage to their industry has come about as a direct result of the policies deliberately pursued by the right hon. Gentleman.
Those policies have harmed others as well. Families buying or wanting to buy a house have been hit harder than ever before by the Government's interest rate policy. For more than a year, mortgage rates have been at levels far above those which used to spur the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to paroxysms of synthetic fury when they were in Opposition.
Last week, the secretary-general designate of the Building Societies Association accused the Government of unfair competition amounting to almost an abuse of power in the battle to attract personal savings. He said that if the Government's rivalry with the societies continued, higher mortgage rates were the "only possible outcome", and that the Government's decision to raise large sums from personal savers would
reverberate through every building society decision on interest rates and mortgage rates for some time to come.
The result has been a disastrous fall in the number of new mortgages. In 1978, the last full year of the Labour Government, the number of home loans granted was at an all-time record of 804,000. In 1980, the right hon. Gentleman's first full year in Government, home loans were down from 804,000 to 677,000, which is a reduction of 16 per cent.

Mr. John Heddle: While the right hon. Gentleman is examining under the microscope the last full year of the Labour Administration, will he tell the House how much house prices rose that year? Does he not agree that they rose by 26½ per cent.?

Mr. Kaufman: That is a fraction of the increase in house prices that took place when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister.
The number of first-time buyers last year was down from 379,000 to 318,000.
In the light of that record on home ownership, the House must be baffled by the reference in the Government's amendment on the Order Paper to Government measures
to extend home ownership more widely than ever before".
Possibly those who drafted the amendment were influenced by the leaflet that I have here, which has been distributed by a plush estate agency drumming up custom. It says:
A marked increase in values was especially evident in the sales of property offered for sale in good to luxurious order.
That will no doubt come as a heartening comfort to the young couples who, two years ago, were bamboozled into voting Tory and who now find it impossible to break into the home ownership market.
But if home ownership has been severely damaged by the right hon. Gentleman's policies, even more devastating has been his attack on housing for rent. Of all the Government's expenditure cuts since 1979, no less than 75 per cent. have been in housing alone. When the right hon. Gentleman makes his announcements on housing investment for the public sector we always get two figures; first he gives the phoney figure and then he is forced under questioning to come clean. His behaviour

pattern will be recognised by any criminologist as the hardened practice of the habitual offender—first deceive on the Floor of the House, then confess by written answer.
A year ago, the Secretary of State announced his first housing investment programme. In it he pretended that the cut compared with the Labour year was 27 per cent. A little later he was forced to own up to the true figure—not 27 per cent. but 33 per cent. In December 1980, a few weeks ago, he made his second HIP announcement and clothed the figures in fancy dress to try to show that this further cut was 15 per cent. But another question squeezed the true figure out of him—not 15 per cent. but 21 per cent.
The housing investment programme in the last year of the Labour Government was far from satisfactory, as my right hon. Friends who were then at the Department of the Environment will readily acknowledge, but in his first two years the right hon. Gentleman has slashed that final Labour figure by a devastating 51 per cent. The programme now is less than half what it was when Labour left office.
The result so far of the right hon. Gentleman's relentless attack on housing, for rent and for sale, was made known last week with the housing figures for 1980—the Secretary of State's first full year in office. They show that the number of new houses started for sale, at 98,400, was the lowest for 28 years. The number of public sector housing starts, at 53,600, was the lowest in peace-time since 1924-25. The number of new council house starts in England fell to the miserable dribble of 27,000. The total of private and public sector starts, at 152,000, was the lowest in peacetime since 1924–25.
The Secretary of State can reflect, with whatever satisfaction he may derive from the information, that the last Minister responsible for housing who had a record worse than his own was a right hon. Gentleman by the name of Neville Chamberlain.
One of the nasty little habits that the Secretary of State has developed is to pretend that the decline in the housing programme over which he is presiding is simply a continuation of a trend begun under the Labour Government. To carry out that act of statistical smash and grab, he has to start from the year 1975, which was Labour's peak year, when in particular we had increased the housing programme to a level well above that in any year during the previous Tory Government of 1970–74.
It is true that the Labour Government did not maintain its peak achievements of 1975 and 1976, but in 1978, Labour's last full year, the reduction in local authority starts in England was 17 per cent. on the previous year. The reduction between 1980, the right hon. Gentleman's first full year, and 1978, Labour's last full year, was an enormous 60 per cent. Such of the right hon. Gentleman's tenuous reputation for veracity as still survives will benefit from his abandonment of that form of deceit.

Mr. Robert Atkins: What happened to 1979?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member, whose majority, without the thousands, is about as big as the Secretary of State's housing record for last year—we shall dispose of them both—wants to know what the change was from 1979 to 1980. The year 1979 was a mixed year, beginning with Labour and continuing with this Conservative Government. The fall that year to 1980 was 42 per cent.—more than double the fall in the Labour year which


I have given. I hope that the hon. Member will find that satisfactory when he hires some small schoolroom in Preston in which to address his majority.
However, as I said, the right hon. Gentleman is not only presiding over the worst housing programme for half a century; he has also made housing more expensive than at any time in this country's history. When Labour left office, the mortgage rate stood at 11¾per cent. Throughout last year, it was 15 per cent. Now, at 14 per cent., it is still far above any level reached under Labour.
The mortgage rate increases under the Tories amount to a massive additional tax of £1 ½ billion on the country's 5¼ million mortgage payers. The right hon. Gentleman's rent increases are imposing a similarly enormous tax on the 5½ million council tenants—people whose average household income is 24 per cent. below the national average. The right hon. Gentleman's rent tax on council tenants is £1¼ billion.
Last year, the Secretary of State used his rate support grant guideline to induce local councils to increase rents by 28 per cent. Figures published last week show that, by last April, average council house rents had already risen by 20 per cent. over the previous year. But now the right hon. Gentleman is using his powers under the Housing Act 1980 and the new block grant system under the Local Government Act 1980 to force councils to put up their rents by an average of at least £3·25 a week. The right hon. Gentleman is cutting housing subsidy for each local authority equivalent to an average £2·95 a week rent increase. That could reduce subsidy by £1 billion this year and could wipe out housing subsidies almost completely within two years. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman is cutting rate support grant for housing revenue accounts by another £200 million.
Those turns of the screw will force even Labour councils to make huge rent increases. All over the country, Tory councils are mercilessly demonstrating that they need little encouragement to penalise their tenants. Last month, in company with my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) I toured the housing black spots of Stockport, of which that Tory council has generously made available an ample supply. Stockport has just announced its fourth rent increase in 19 months. Since this Government came to office, Stockport's rents have more than doubled.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My right hon. Friend was helpful in coming to look at Stockport. Will he now challenge the Minister to come back with him to see the black spots of Stockport, especially the large number of pre-war houses on which no money has been spent for modernisation, which have had little or no opportunity to be modernised, and the rents for which have been doubled in 18 months?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has issued the invitation. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to come to our area I shall be glad to join with both my hon. Friends in escorting him round some of the areas which I saw a few weeks ago.
In Basingstoke, rents charged by the Tory-controlled council are already well above the national average. Last week, Basingstoke council voted to raise rents by another £5·76 a week—an increase of 66·5 per cent.
In Tory-controlled Elmbridge, in Surrey, the council has got up to an even more squalid dodge. Rents in

Elmbridge are even higher than those in Basingstoke. They are now to be increased by a furher 39 per cent., or £3·60 a week. But a memorandum circulated to the Elmbridge housing committee points to a further refinement which is being practiced by Tory councils in Surrey.
Under section 117 of the right hon. Gentleman's new Housing Act, councils are now allowed not only to make a profit on their council house rents—a reversal of the Labour Government's no-profit rule. They are allowed, in addition, to transfer that profit to the general rate fund. The Elmbridge memorandum shows that this is being done. This is what it says, in suitably elegant phraseology:
Some authorities in Surrey…are taking remedial steps by raising rents and transferring some of the moneys raised to the General Rate Fund to redress the loss of block grant in 1981–82.
So Surrey council tenants, with incomes well below average, are having their rents raised in order to subsidise the rate bills of their better-off neighbours.
But Elmbridge has taken this a further step, for 70p of the rent increase in Elmbridge is being specifically imposed to make council tenants alone, and not the general ratepayer, pay for the cost of bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless, for the council's share of the cost of rent rebates, and for the cost of administering the rent rebate scheme. This is the kind of monstrous practice that is being fostered by the right hon. Gentleman.
When faced with the indictment which arises from a simple recital of the facts of his policy, the Secretary of State generally offers four replies. His first reply is to say that anyhow there is a tremendous amount of house improvement going on, and to imply that this somehow makes up for the lack of new dwellings being built. But improvements, however welcome they may be, do not provide a homeless family or a newly married couple with a house they did not have before. In any case, even if we add new local authority starts and improvements together—however invalid such a calculation may be—1980 still provided the worst figures for 22 years.
What is more, the cuts in housing investment programmes will mean that many local authorities will not have money to spare for improvements. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers' survey makes this very clear. It says:
Even the repair and maintenance sector is continuing to decline, with over half the firms reporting a fall back in orders.
So that little get-out will not work.
Another defence employed by the Secretary of State is to mouth platitudes about his intention to foster the private rented sector. The Government amendment refers to that as well. Reviving the private rented sector is, of course, a euphemism for raising rents and reducing security of tenure, and the most notorious manifestation is the new shorthold tenancy.
No information has so far been made available about the progress of this venture—perhaps we shall get some today—but any success achieved by shorthold will be at the expense of the tenants, who after a year will be at the landlord's mercy, liable to eviction at three months' notice with no reason given, and in no position to disagree with any rent which it suits the landlord to dictate.
These unpleasant characteristics, together with the opportunities given to unscrupulous landlords to winkle unsuspecting or gullible tenants out of protected tenancies and into vulnerable shorthold tenancies, mean that the Government are not only signalling the end of rent control


and security of tenure but sponsoring by statute the return of Rachmanism. That is why I firmly repeat today that the next Labour Government will repeal shorthold tenancies.
The Secretary of State's next line of defence is to resort to another of his less pleasant practices—publishing a list of scapegoats. A little while ago, in response to a planted question from the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), the Minister provided a list of local authorities—all Labour, of course—which had held dwellings vacant for more than a year.

Mr. Michael Latham: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a planted question? If he means that I was asked to put that question down or that somebody else drafted it for me, the answer is that that is not true.

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman put it down on his own initiative, he is an even bigger creep than I thought he was.
I join with any hon. Member in condemning any local authority which needlessly keeps vacant properties which could house those in want of a home. But before the Minister published that particular hit-list of his—which in any case was nearly a year out of date when he published it—he would have done well to inquire into the reasons why some of those dwellings were vacant.
For example, Islington's total of 1,401 vacancies included 1,000 dwellings in process of construction, major works of rehabilitation. Islington now has 100 such dwellings awaiting rehabilitation vacant today because of the Secretary of State's moratorium.
Camden's total of 1,080 included 378 dwellings awaiting improvement, 544 with contractors and 119 completed and available for letting. Camden also today has more than 100 dwellings awaiting rehabilitation vacant because of the moratorium.
In Manchester, no fewer than 600 dwellings were left empty for seven months. They were vacant because they were awaiting approval by the Secretary of State for sale to local housing associations. After that period of vacancy, the Secretary of State refused permission. Yet he has the nerve to make accusations against these councils.
The Secretary of State's list of excuses is completed by that feather in his cap, the compulsory sale of council houses. A year ago we were told that this policy would provide an unparalleled social revolution, equivalent to the liberation of the serfs from the feudal barons. These days we do not hear quite so much about it. I have been trying to get progress reports from the battlefront since the first barricades were erected on 3 October last. But the Minister tells us that the first figures will not be available until April. Meanwhile, we have to rely on what information we can obtain.
One recent report was far from encouraging. This is what The Daily Telegraph reported a few weeks ago:
A psychologist was called in to examine staff of a department of the GLC who were suspected to be lacking enthusiasm for selling council houses, it was confirmed yesterday. The psychologist … was called in to the recently formed Directorate of Home Ownership after a prominent figure at County Hall became worried about the slow rate of council house sales…. The exercise to psychoanalyse the whole Directorate of Home Ownership was launched in December… But there were protests when it was learned that copies of the…files had been left on the coffee table of a personnel officer. The GLC Senior Officers Association objected to the exercise and staff

were ordered to shred the files. But the exercise … led to several unexpected results. Mr. John Mitchell, a former chairman and managing director of Cunard, who had been recruited to be the 'super-salesman' at the head of the department, at a salary of up to £35,000 a year, resigned …the £12,000 a year psychologist was dismissed … after being convicted of fare dodging on the Underground.
The article was written by John Grigsby, the local government correspondent.
That is a sorry state of affairs. However, there is an even more depressing aspect than that of compulsory council house sales. Even if sales fall far below the Government's declared expectation of 120,000 in the next financial year, they are still likely to exceed the number of new houses being built now that the building programme has been almost wiped out. For the first time in the history of public sector housing there will be fewer houses available for letting at the end of each year than at the beginning.
The prospects are even worse for the future. Soon after the Secretary of State came to office he made a speech praising housing associations for their programme of 40,000 new homes a year, but his cuts have reduced the associations' programme in the coming financial year from 40,000 to 12,000.
Last week the right hon. Gentleman told the House that when local authorities in England made their housing investment submissions in August 1980 they were planning to start 29,600 dwellings in this financial year, a lamentable programme by any standards. However, a couple of months after that came the moratorium on new contracts, which has lasted nearly four months and shows no sign of ending. The Secretary of State admitted to me this week that the moratorium has not only damaged the building programme but involves a loss in subsidy to the local authorities, through no fault of their own, both this year and next year.
The Minister did not tell the House that the same local authorities with such low performance expectations this year received from him permission to spend only 47 per cent. of the money that they require to meet their needs in the coming financial year.
This attack on the housing problem is a tragedy not only for those in need of homes but for the workers who want to build those homes and who instead are being thrown on the dole. In the year ending November 1980, unemployment in the construction industry nearly doubled to almost 300,000. That is the highest level recorded since the Second World War.
The increase in construction unemployment, at a moderate estimate, involves additional cost to the public sector borrowing requirement of £600 million. Statisticians in the industry have calculated that to invest that £600 million in public construction projects could create 90,000 new jobs. Surely it makes sense to use that money productively, to give men the dignity of working instead of queueing for the dole and to provide new homes for those who desperately need them.
In January 1932 the then Tory-dominated Government issued circular 1238 on housing, priced 1d. It stated:
The outstanding need at the present time is for the building of houses which can be let at rents within the means of the poorer members of the working classes.
The language of that circular is dated and so, unfortunately, are the sentiments. It seems that 49 years ago one of the hardest-hearted Governments of this century showed by that circular and the number of council


houses that they were building—more than double the present—that they cared more about housing those in need in 1932 than this Secretary of State does in 1981. That is the indictment against him and that is why we shall vote against him and his policies.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'this House welcomes the measures the Government are taking to restore a sound economy, to make better use of the existing housing stock, to revive the private rented sector, to provide a new charter of rights for public sector tenants, and to extend home ownership more widely than ever before.'
I confess that as I tried to anticipate what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) might say that was new—we have heard what he had to say so many times before—I assumed that he might try to indicate where the policies in which he shared and supported when in Government had changed to bring about an improvement in the circumstances for which he would criticise the present Government. I was disappointed to find that every alternative proposal that I thought he might advance was absent from his analysis. He managed to go through his entire speech without making one constructive proposal. I dare say that: that is a practice that he learnt from his experience in office, because that is precisely the way in which the Labour Government treated the housing programme.
It is not my intention to spend a great deal of time on what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. I doubt very much whether it serves the purpose of housing policy to have an endless repetition of misleading and inaccurate statements from the right hon. Gentleman. I shall take two examples. The first example is indicative of the trivial personal abuse in which he specialises. The right hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has indulged in planting a question. There is no justificaton lor that allegation.
The right hon. Gentleman then tried to suggest that improving houses did not provide homes for the homeless. If there are houses that local authorities cannot use because they are in an inadequate state of repair, to divert money to improve and make them usable is to make available homes that can be used by the homeless. The right hon. Gentleman said that during the past year the number of home improvements had increased significantly. It is extraordinary that he does not realise that improving an empty house so that it can be occupied is of as much benefit to the homeless as building a new home that similarly can be occupied.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: How many are there?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall provide the figures to indicate how many extra improvements have been made during the past year. There has been a significant switch, but one hears not a word about that from the right hon. Gentleman. That is because it does not suit the catalogue of rubbish that he sees fit to produce on occasions such as this.
I do not intend to weary the House with a repetition of all the figures that indicate clearly the catastrophic housing results that we saw when the Labour Government were in office. I have produced them on numerous occasions and

they are well documented. As the Minister responsible for housing, it is unsatisfactory for me to have to point out that the previous Government had an appalling record. However, the facts do not change as time goes on. Between 1974–75 and 1978–79 the Labour Government halved investment in capital spending. Over five years Labour Ministers brought about the most rapid reduction in capital expenditure on housing that we had ever seen up to that time. At the same time—

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Mr. Reginald Freeson (Brent, East) rose—

Mr. Heseltine: No. The right hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. It is his record, and he can defend it.

Mr. Freeson: Mr. Freeson rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.

Mr. Heseltine: I am prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Freeson: This is the first time that I have taken the opportunity to put the record straight, although I have heard the right hon. Gentleman talk on many occasions about the reduction in capital expenditure that he claims was created by the Labour Government. I do not intend to bandy figures with him. Will he bear in mind—I put it as politely as possible—that the figures that he has been quoting, which suggest that there was a halving of the investment programme, are inaccurate? Over the years to which he referred he participated in housing debates, and he knows that much larger capital sums were made available and that during the latter years of the Labour Government councils under the control of his party, and with his support, cut their housing programmes and underspent by hundreds of millions of pounds. That is the truth that needs to be repeated. There was no halving of the programme. There was underspending by his party, which he endorsed.

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the House is enabled to make progress. It is apparent that the man who had prime responsibility when the Labour Government were in office now agrees that there was a significant underspend on the housing programme. The right hon. Gentleman's defence of the fact that there was underspending is that it was done by Conservative authorities.

Mr. Freeson: Mainly.

Mr. Heseltine: That is slightly different from what the right hon. Gentleman said when I gave way to him, but the figures do not support his case—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House."]—Every time I produce the facts and they do not conform with the conventional wisdom that the Opposition seek to advance, they say that I am misleading the House. The only people who believe that I am misleading the House are Opposition Members, who are determined to try to pretend that what happened under the Labour Government never actually happened. I must say this to the former Minister for Housing and Construction. I shall be nice to the right hon. Gentleman, and I steel myself to the effort that that requires. I do not believe that he wanted the housing programme to collapse. I believe that he was simply so completely incompetent that he did not know how to stop it. Any analysis of public expenditure records under the Labour Government shows that the levels of


investment in public expenditure on housing and, indeed, all other local authority investment, slumped dramatically. That is the fact of the matter.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I like giving way to Labour Members, but it takes an inordinate amount of time. To allow as many of them as possible to produce figures and advance their views, it is only fair that I should ask for their tolerance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give us the figures."] I have the figures. I am about to produce them.
Let us take the housing capital programme for England. All these figurs are at 1980 survey prices. In 1975–76 the figure was £4.259 billion. In 1979 it was £2.664 billion. Every year it went down. I shall put the figures on record again if it helps the Opposition, but the one incontrovertible fact is that year by year under the Labour Government there was a decline in the investment programme in public sector housing.
It is against that background that the Government had to start, and our record will have to be judged from the point at which we started. I do not wish in any way to minimise the difficulties or the hardships that are brought about by trying to reverse the trends that we saw under the Labour Government, but nobody can ignore the hypocrisy of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), who has become one of the leading exponents of this in the House, in trying to pretend that it never happened.
We must first get the priorities right. The single most important priority is to bring down the level of inflation. The Opposition cannot escape the fact that month by month the levels of inflation are falling, faster than perhaps even the most optimistic supporters of the Government dared to believe.
That is the first priority that the Government are determined to pursue. Underlying that are all the hopes of redressing the balance and improving the national situation.
We have to reach an economic situation in which we create wealth before we spend it. Then we must redress the balance in favour of capital rather than current expenditure. In the process of arriving at that position we have to make a difficult and harsh judgment about what the nation can afford. To judge what we can afford we must recognise that there is a significant difference in the availability of housing and in housing conditions today compared with the situation even 10 and certainly 20 years ago.
We must also recognise, as I have heard previous Secretaries of State tell the House, that the problems of housing are different in different parts of the country. In some areas there is a significant surplus in crude terms. In others there is a shortage. In yet others there is suitable stock which is under-repaired. In others again there is a higher demand for renting and a lower demand for ownership. There are various patterns.
The first priority that we pursued was, therefore, to give to local authorities and to the Housing Corporation and associations the discretion to use such resources as we felt that we could afford in a way that they felt was most likely to meet the individual housing needs of their own areas. We did not believe that it was possible for the Government to plan with the precision that was assumed by the Labour Government, only to find that they had it wrong. Indeed,

they got it wrong in as many Labour as in Conservative authorities. We therefore decided that within what the nation could afford we would give to local government a degree of responsibility in this matter that it had never dreamt of being able to achieve. As part of that exercise, Parker Mofris is to go, the yardstick is to go and there will be discretion for local authorities to allocate their priorities—whether for improvement, new building or aiding the private sector—because they know much better than we do how to deal with the problems that they face.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central) rose—

Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.
We are trying to work in partnership with the local authorities and the private building industry in order to make the widest range and flexibility of schemes available to those wishing to buy to allow them to get their feet on the first rungs of home ownership. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has brought to this area the most imaginative range of new initiatives to be seen since the war. He has perhaps been aided in that by the total bankruptcy of the Labour Party, which let this area fester.

Mr. Davis: Mr. Davisrose—

Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to accuse my right hon. Friend of telling lies?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be out of order if an hon. Member were to do that, but I confess that I did not hear the comment, or whence it came.

Mr. Davis: Having regard to what the Minister was saying about local authorities, I admit that I referred to his statement as being one of lies. If that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful for the hon. Member's assistance in that matter.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East makes great play of the decline in the level of new building. As I said earlier, he failed completely to make the point that we are making much more efficient use of resources because of the switch to improvement that is taking place in Labour as well as Conservative authorities. That, of course, is being met in part by reductions in the capital programme and in new construction. In the year ended September 1980 about 83,500 dwellings were renovated by local authorities. That compares with 36,000 in 1975–76. That is a marked shift of priorities. Nearly one-third of local authority capital spending, at the authorities' own choice, now goes on improvements.
We have made many changes to help authorities to improve the quality of their existing stock, at little or no charge to the HIP allocation. Councils are being encouraged to improve and to sell property. They can retain the proceeds from such sales, in addition to their HIP allocations. Homesteading is now being taken up on a wide scale across the country. That is an excellent example of public and private sector co-operation. We have made the right to improvement grants available to tenants as well as to owners of properties. Grants of up to 75 per cent. are available for houses in poor condition, and


applicants in real hardship can apply for a further 15 per cent. grant. A new repairs grant is available for structural repairs on houses built before 1919.
I should like to announce today that I shall be commissioning a new English house condition survey to be undertaken on the same pattern as that which took place in 1976.

Mr. David Alton: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that a survey is to be conducted and I am pleased to see the switch to more improvements. However, can he confirm that although I sent him a photograph before Christmas of an unimproved house in my constituency, that house will not now be improved until his moratorium is lifted? It is one of many homes for which people cannot get improvement grants because of another policy that he has implemented, whereby people cannot get improvement grants until later this year. The house to which I have referred would have been improved by now.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have lifted the moratorium on improvements in respect of all those authorities that are below their capital allocations.

Mr. Alton: Not on mine.

Mr. Heseltine: No, because it is an overspending authority. I am sure that Opposition Members are not arguing that I should allow overspending authorities to continue to spend at the expense of the underspending authorities, which many of them represent.
In addition to the actual housing statistics, the Government have taken a range of initiatives to remove, wherever they reasonably can, the constraints that inhibit industrial development, and particularly housing development. As the House knows, we have repealed the Community Land Act. We are encouraging local authorities to co-operate with builders in studies to ensure that land is available for development—[Interruption.] One cannot build houses without land. I think that even the right hon. Member for Brent, East might have got round to that simple conclusion. Many other things escaped him, but I should have thought that that would have got through to him.
I have already designated 21 authorities—largely the inner city authorities—where I have established land registers so that we can get under-used or misused publicly-owned land, which is the vast bulk of under-used land in the inner cities, on to the market so that it can be put to profitable use. I shall shortly announce a further 12 districts that will be added to the registers.
I think that that initiative carries the overwhelming support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall not hesitate to use the powers with which the House has entrusted me to give directions to public undertakings and local authorities to dispose of their land, unless I am satisfied that there is a very good case for their holding on to it. I cannot believe that there is anything to be gained by unused land in the public sector.
I am also increasing the provision of housing land in structure plans. We have dramatically speeded up the rate at which these structure plans are being processed.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am listening to my right hon. Friend with interest and I support what he is saying. He knows that county structure plans are now coming before him. Has there been any analysis

by his Department of the provisions that are needed, and has he any rough idea of the kind of housing that will be required as a result?

Mr. Heseltine: The most detailed analysis is going on in my Department, in conjunction with the house builders—we are also involving local government—to discover exactly what the constraints on land supply could turn out to be under the structure plans. The most detailed analysis is being carried out. When we have the result, which will be very soon now, we shall draw whatever conclusions are appropriate in order to ensure that there is no hold up through lack of appropriate development land.
We have overhauled the appeals mechanism and planning application procedures. There is no doubt that a considerable improvement in productivity has been achieved by the improvements that we have brought about. Not only have we coped with a 40 per cent, increase in the number of appeals coming into the Department, but we are processing the overall number of appeals in a shorter period of time.
I do not pretend for a minute that this has been anything but a difficult year for the private house building sector. But—and this is the important point that the House will want to note—funds are now flowing into the building societies on an encouraging scale. The advice that I am receiving from the private sector builders is that the signs are that the market is beginning to improve. The estimate that I have is that we might expect to see about 20,000 additional homes completed in the year that is just starting. In fact, in the last quarter of 1980 private sector starts were up 8 per cent. on the third quarter seasonally adjusted. While I do not pretend that that solves our problems, it is at least an indication that events are beginning to move in a more encouraging direction.
I now turn to the rented sector, both public and private. There are two points that I want to make. First, the Labour Party well knows that during its period in Government it was responsible for presiding over a significant reduction in the proportion of income paid in council house rents. As earnings rose, council house rents rose more slowly.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Quite right.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman thinks that that is quite right. In an inflationary society, the consequences were, first, that local authorities needed more subsidy; secondly, that they felt an increasing squeeze on the standards of maintenance of their homes; and thirdly, because of the subsidy factors that emerged, they stopped building houses on anything like the scale of earlier years. I must now either cut the capital programmes further to meet what we can afford, or try to catch up the areas of declining relative contribution that rent caused as a result of the previous Government's policy.
I have looked carefully at the figures involved. I make no apology for the fact that I have had to ask council tenants to assume an increase in weekly rental payments of £3·25 in the course of the coming year. From what I have read, that is what council tenants across the country are paying.
I have had to realise that a significant number of council tenants are protected as a result of the measures introduced under the rent rebate scheme by an earlier Conservative Government. All those in most need on supplementary benefit pay no rent increase at all, because they are fully protected. About 40 per cent, of those on the lowest


incomes are protected to some extent or other, depending entirely upon their income and family circumstances. There is a real degree of protection for people in council houses at the lower income levels.
At the other end of the scale, a significant proportion—approximately one-quarter of council tenants—have an income of £7,000 to £8,000 a year, as against a rental of about £11 a week. I see no justification whatever for reducing the level of capital allocations for the construction or improvement of homes in order to meet subsidies that are created by people on average industrial earnings who are devoting something like a quarter of their income to pay for the homes that they are trying to buy. I do not see why at the same time, through their rate contributions, they should help to keep down council rents for people who work alongside them—in the same factories, on the same shop floors and on the same building sites—and who enjoy the subsidies paid through rates by people in identical economic circumstances. That is the issue which Labour Members ran away from year after year. That is why their housing programmes collapsed under them. I will have no part of it.

Mr. Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that this year the subsidy to owner-occupiers—I am in favour of that subsidy, just as I am in favour of a subsidy to tenants—went up by £500 million to a total of £1,600 million because the interest went up, and therefore the subsidy went up. Is it not unfair to increase rents by £5·30 over two years by reducing the subsidy, while at the same time increasing the subsidy to owner-occupiers?

Mr. Heseltine: All these issues must be carefully weighed in the balance. Labour Members must understand—it is their constituencies as much as ours that are involved—that people getting the benefit of mortgage interest relief are buying their homes and contributing perhaps a quarter of their incomes in order to do so, whereas the subsidies going into council houses are to keep council rents down to levels of £7 or £8 a week, when many people in council houses have the same income as people buying their homes. I do not believe that we have made an unfair allocation.
I shall say more about rents in the private sector. I was fascinated to read an article by Mr. David Lipsey in The Sunday Times. The House will be familiar with Mr. Lipsey, who worked for my predecessors in office in the Labour Government as a research assistant in the Department of the Environment. He has a great deal of experience. He knew what the former Minister for Housing and Construction was up to or not up to, and he knew why the Rent Acts review never took place or was always being promised for tomorrow. I read with interest that he praised our changes in the Rent Acts as
sensible initiatives… which removed some of the worst rigidities of the Rent Acts.
In that statement he made a more encouraging noise and a more positive contribution in one week on one page of The Sunday Times than he managed to persuade the Secretary of State in a Labour Government to say in the whole time that he worked in the Department.
We have heard the right hon. Member for Ardwick, full of compassion, care and concern, trying to get homes for people, but making certain that anyone who has a home to let will not let if he has anything to do with it. We have

introduced the concept of shorthold, which is intended to try to edge forward from the rigidities of the rent control system that has done so much to diminish the availability of rented accommodation. We have provided a system with plenty of safeguards and which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was only too happy to discuss with the Labour Party to see whether there was any meeting ground.
What is the right hon. Gentleman now doing? He is hawking himself around the country giving every conceivable deterrent to anyone who has a home to let by threatening that the security will be restored to that home. The consequences will be that the home will be sold and not let. The people who will suffer will not be the owners of those homes—because they will gain the capital proceeds—but all those we have heard about who have nowhere else to live and whom Labour Members treat as political pawns. I make no apology for trying to move forward and break away from some of the rigidities of the Rent Acts which have done so much harm to those in greatest need.
I reject absolutely the total misrepresentation of what I have done on the moratorium. I have not cut a penny piece from the initial allocations. All that I have done is to say that the cash limit discipline that the Labour Party invented has to be maintained, even though that party is in Opposition. We cannot allow overspending authorities to think that they can pre-empt the resources of those authorities, both Labour and Conservative, which run their affairs properly. That cannot be done. We shall not allow it. I have said that we shall stick to the cash limit this year. All authorities which overspend this year will have their overspend deducted next year, but all authorities which underspend this year will be able to add the underspend to next year's allocations. That is the only fair method by which I can meet the obligations of the cash limit system which the Labour Party introduced and which I believe is necessary.
I have no doubt that because of the economic difficulties that have haunted this country since the early 1960s there are no easy or soft options in housing or in any other sphere. The Labour Party tried them all and ended in humiliating retreat because it could not sustain the easy policies which it implies that it would return to. It is not a question of not caring, but of knowing that the only way to achieve improvement in housing and the capital expenditure that is necessary in this and other spheres is to create the wealth and to be able to pay the bills without lurching into the difficulties that existed under the Labour Government.
I spent much of this morning—as I have done earlier occasions at other meetings—discussing either with the Group of Eight or the building EDC the problems of the construction industry. They want to make three points: first, that the industry is declining and undergoing so deep and prolonged a decline that it is probable that it will never be restored to its former strength; secondly, that it is almost as cheap to employ people in gainful employment as it is to keep them on the unemployment register; thirdly, that the industry is about investment and not consumption, and so we should give a greater degree of priority to the industry because it is investing in the future. I am not unsympathetic to any of those attitudes, although I have had to explain my view about them.
I have tried, as Secretary of State for the Environment, to pursue any specific policy that I think will help the


construction industry or the investment in it that I should like to see. The stabilisation of development land tax which was announced earlier, the land release programmes, the speeding up of the planning procedures, the establishment of enterprise zones, the substantially increased capital expenditure that I announced on Monday for the urban development corporations to deal with some of the worst problems of inner city dereliction in Liverpool and inner London are all part of a range of initiatives that we are pursuing to bring private sector money in to finance new house building schemes, advance factory building and the reorientation of urban programmes.
However, I have had to say to members of the EDC, both employers and unionists who argue the case with me, that simply spending more Government money—which is what they are suggesting—does not have the wholly benign effects that they so easily assume. The extra borrowing for which they call, the extra interest rates to which that will inexorably lead, will destroy as many jobs, if not more, in the private sector as would be created by the use of that money in the public sector. Governments cannot create wealth. If the Labour Party did not discover that in its six years in office, it discovered nothing. All that the Government can do is to allocate the existing wealth differently within the economic climate, which we can greatly influence.
It is here that I am much closer to the arguments advanced by the EDC and the construction industry. The critical priority is to create a climate where spontaneous profitable investment is self-generating. That demands that the Government borrow less and not more. It demands lower and not higher interest charges. But even at the lower levels of public spending, to which I am committed, it is possible for the Government to reorder the priorities between current and capital expenditure. But every time one proposes cuts in consumption in order to make way for improvements in capital, the Labour Party fights it all the way. No clearer example of that is to be found than, for example, in its policy in local government. I read that the national executive committee of the Labour Party had advised local government to keep up its spending, to put up the rates if necessary and to do anything reasonable to stop the cuts. That was before Shirley Williams left. Lord knows what it is up to now.
When at last some sanity seems to be entering into pay settlements which are sensible in the national economic context, Labour-influenced unions are fighting to raise the wage claims, the consequence of which will be an even more prolonged depression than we have. They are determined to resist the cuts that could help to finance capital expenditure. The message from the National Union of Public Employees is clear. It says about providing the economies in consumption that could lead to improvements in capital:
refuse to do extra work or accept changes in working arrangements when employers are trying to make cuts.
Work to rule and refuse to co-operate with employers who are making cuts.
Refuse to work with private contractors.
Hold meetings, demonstrations or token strikes at times when it will hurt the employers most.
What NUPE cannot understand is that its employers in the public sector are all of us. It is arguing to damage the country. As long as it pursues those attitudes, the problems of reducing public consumption in order to benefit the

capital side of the economy will be made more difficult. Nothing gives a better indication of the irresponsibility of the Labour Party than attitudes such as that.

Mr. Heffer: I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's references to NUPE. I understood that the debate was about the housing and construction industry. Will he explain how many NUPE members work in that industry?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman, who now speaks for a major part of the Labour Party, understands that public expenditure on consumption—

Mr. Heffer: Answer the question.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall answer it. There is a direct decision to be made by the Government about the level of current public expenditure and how that relates to the competing priority of capital expenditure. The hon. Gentleman had to make those judgments when he was in Government. The higher the level of current expenditure in local government, the lower the level of capital expenditure. If the Labour Party does not understand that, why did the Labour Government halve the level of capital expenditure in local government when they were in power? They did so because of the enormous pressure on current expenditure. That was the beginning of the construction industry's problems in the 1970s.

Mr. William Shelton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a strike in Lambeth last week, in which NUPE was involved? Does he know that it was supported by the Lambeth council, and that the cost of cleaning up the resulting rubbish, for instance, is falling on the Lambeth ratepayers?

Mr. Heseltine: I am well aware of that. The leader of Lambeth council advised workers to go on strike in order to prevent cuts in current consumption. That was a deliberate decision to ensure that less money was available for capital expenditure.
Wherever one looks in the Labour Party one sees this rigid and doctrinal resistance to reductions in the level of consumption, whatever the cost of that consumption for the ratepayers.
I have seen a report from the director of finance in Camden on the effects of spending policies on housing and local government generally. The implications for the rates are clearly spelt out for the members of the controlling Labour group. He explained the risks that the group was taking and the number of jobs that might go because companies might leave the borough if the rate increases that were being discussed materialised. He went on, rather charmingly, to point out that the CBI, which is a ratepayer in the borough of Camden, would face a rise in its rates bill of over £250,000 if the Camden council were persuaded to implement the proposed rate increases.
It might be acceptable to increase the levy on Britain's industrialists if that is the prejudice of the Labour Party, but the Opposition should understand that a few hundred yards down the road is NALGO. It will have to find another £200,000. Further down the road still is the TUC, which will have to pay another £125,000. In other words, the Camden councillors are saying that they want the levy on union members all over Britain to be increased so that the unions can pay higher rates to Camden in order that Camden can preserve more jobs in its area, jobs which the officers of that authority regard as inefficient.
The report about the direct labour organisation of that authority says that
in order to win contracts and trade profitably, the Department's productivity must be almost doubled.
What conceivable justification is there for trade unionists having to pay an enhanced levy to keep in operation a direct labour organisation, the productivity of which is half that to be found in efficient diirect labour organisations or the private sector? On the basis of that, are we to believe that the Opposition are genuinely seeking responsibly to reduce expenditure in line with the nation's needs? We all know that the Labour Party is in the most desperate difficulty in trying to find its way forward either to moderate, sensible and practical policies based on what its members have learnt, or out into the dreamy world in which so many of them now seen determined to live their lives.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick does not have a view about which way he should go. He wants only to cause the maximum possible disruption and to make the most misleading statements. Now he has the final triumph of his period as Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. He is to have a housing action week. It starts on Friday, when he will be off for a quick trip to Blackpool to see how to run a good Tory local authority. After that, it is feet up until Wednesday. After a leisurely breakfast he plans at 10 o'clock to lead a placard-waving mob of Members of Parliament to picket my Department. The first over the barricades will be the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) followed by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), with the rather shamefaced Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment—the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann)—probably some way behind.
After all the breathless activity this warrior figure, this samurai of the Shadow Cabinet, will have time to wander down memory lane. Some of us are a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have chosen to picket my Department. It is hardly a return to the scene of his former triumphs. He will be going back to the Department in which he halved the housing programme in three years, back to memories of council house starts that dropped from 110,000 to 47,000 in four years. He will be going back to the heady days of his time in Government when he helped to increase consumption by 20 per cent. at the expense of a 50 per cent. drop in housing capital investment. Then he can return to the House and start the whole weary record of hypocrisy all over aain.
I ask the House to reject the motion and vote for the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I shall in no way be shamefaced as I try to reveal, outside the Department in Marsham Street next Wednesday, some of the facts of life about housing and some of the fallacies with which the Secretary of State is regaling the public and the House. We have just listened to a characteristic speech from the right hon. Gentleman. It was filled with half-truths, misleading statements, and a vast amount of irrelevance. Practically all the second half of the right hon. Gentleman's lengthy speech was devoted to issues that

were irrelevant to the motion. We experienced his usual enthusiasm for the economic policies of the Prime Minister in respect of which The Sunday Times this week stated
Wrong, Mrs Thatcher, wrong, wrong, wrong.
It was a headline over a detailed destruction of the Government's policies by a newspaper that is not customarily regarded as a Labour Party supporter.
Even more characteristic of the Secretary of State was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman quoted from the article by Mr. David Lipsey in that issue of The Sunday Times.He did not quote the passage immediately preceding the part that he read out. In his article Mr. Lipsey referred to:
the bare bones of the housing crisis that is inevitable in the mid-Eighties.
It means council waiting lists of 2 million compared with 1 ·2 million now—a wait for the average family on the list of 21·4 years.
It means a continued deterioration of existing homes. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimates there is a £14 billion backlog of housing maintenance and improvement—at a time when we are clearing houses at a rate that means each one must last on average 500 years. In inner London, no less than one property in seven is reckoned unfit for habitation.
It means—as Shelter's director, Neil McIntosh, puts it—this, in human terms: "In the Seventies we could house people normally at the point of their lives when they could reasonably expect to be housed—when they got married, for example. Now, if you cannot afford to buy, you will be provided for only when you have been projected into a crisis—like battering your child.
Because in housing there is a lag between cause and effect—this year's starts are 1982/3's completions—the full crisis has not yet hit us. But already Housing Minister John Stanley"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am most reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Long quotations are not really in order.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am on the last sentence, which is especially relevant to the point that I am making, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It states:
But already Housing Minister John Stanley has the air of a Nero drawing attention to the dexterity of his trills as the fire draws nearer.
The article continues with the sentence quoted by the Secretary of State.
That is characteristic of the Secretary of State. It is characteristic of the arguments with which he defends his housing record. It is characteristic of the arguments that he used when refusing to supply certain information to the Select Committee. It is characteristic of the manner in which he presented his policy on council house sales, when he used misleading and selective arguments.
I wish to refer to paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Government's "Appraisal of the Financial Effects of Council House Sales". I shall not quote the whole of the passage. It is good for a laugh, but to quote it would attract your censure, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It refers to a "representative" council house purchaser, who would, for the most part, be between 30 and 60, and have an expectation of living for over 30 years. It goes on:
Given that most married men are survived by their widows, who normally succeed to the tenancy, some 30–40 years would typically elapse before there is an effect on the number of houses vacant and available for letting to new tenants.
It concludes:
So no provision is made in this Appraisal for replacement building
The Secretary of State argues that because in a typical case the sale of a council house will not cause the loss of a relet for 30 years, the sale of council houses will cause no loss of relets for that time. That is similar to arguing


that because a typical car journey does not involve an accident there is no need to make provision to cope with any accidents, because none will occur. That is the sort of fallacious argument with which the Secretary of State is always regaling the House. I do not look forward with enthusiasm to reading the Hansard report of the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon but I shall do so because one needs to read and check his speeches to cut through the windy oratory to the fallacies and misleading ingredients, of which there are always many.
In the peroration to the Secretary of State's speech he said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) had cut by half the number of houses built during the period of the Labour Government. I ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to quote from the first report of the Select Committee, which states:
Your Committee accepts that housing investment has been declining since 1975/76, but notes that the rate of reduction in expenditure proposed at £645 million a year for a four-year period is substantially greater than that of the average of £475 million a year seen between 1974/75 and 1978/79 and would draw attention to the fact that the proposed reduction represents an overall decline over the four-year period under review of 48 per cent. compared with an overall figure of 25 per cent. between 1974/75 and 1978/79.
I accept—although I am not proud of the fact—that the figure was 25 per cent. under the Labour Government, but it will be 48 per cent. over a shorter period under the Conservative Government.
I am conscious of the pressure of time in the debate. A number of my colleagues wish to speak. I wish to refer briefly to other conclusions of the Select Committee. This is the first housing debate since the Select Committee produced its report. It did a vast amount of work on the analysis of the implications of the Government's expenditure plans. This is the first opportunity for the House to debate that report. The Committee heard the usual non-reply from the Secretary of State. He suggested that its members had misunderstood the functions of the 1977 Green Paper but informed press comment was that it was insulting to a Committee of the calibre of the Environment Committee, and also to its advisers, to suggest that its members were incapable of understanding the housing policy review. As a consequence of the proposed measures—which were considered before the moratorium was announced—the Committee concluded:
The Committee considers that it is unlikely that new housing starts in the public sector in England will exceed a figure of 31,000 in 1983–84 and could be well below it in the period to 1983–84.
The Green Paper, which the right hon. Gentleman suggested the Committee misunderstood, considered housing needs. Indeed, table III.28 is headed "Demand/ Need". It assessed the public sector housing need in the light of demographic changes, moves to different sectors, and so on, at 290,000 dwellings per annum. It assessed that about 170,000 houses would become available through relets of local authority houses. For the reasons that I have given, that figure of 170,000 will probably not be achieved.
There is no evidence available to the right hon. Gentleman's Department—certainly none that he has been willing to disclose—nor was any evidence discovered by the Select Committee or those who gave evidence before it, to suggest that the 1977 estimate for public sector housing needs was not accurate. There is no evidence to suggest that any alternative estimate is available. It is true that the estimate took account of a projected assessment

of what was likely to be built in the private sector, and assumed that by 1981 it would build between 170,000 and 190,000 houses. In the Secretary of State's reply to the Committee, he said:
The Committtee appear to have misunderstood the Green Paper. It did not provide any target for building houses with which any other figure can be compared. It simply attempted to give some indication about what might happen if trends in the recent past were continued over the next 10 years.
I urge the Secretary of State to read some of the criticisms that appeared in the specialist press of his reply to the Committee's report.
The figures in the quotation from The Sunday Times article summarised a good deal of what I wished to refer to, had time permitted, by quoting certain passages from the Select Committee's report. Any detailed analysis of the Government's housing programme will show that it is creating a massive housing disaster for the next generation. Our children will face appalling difficulties when they enter the housing market. They will find great difficulty in obtaining any house at all. Not only will the public sector fall to disaster levels; the private sector is unlikely to achieve anything like the levels that have been set.
The figures of estimated housing need that I quoted from the 1977 Green Paper were based on the assumption of 170,000 starts in the private sector. The house building figures for the private sector published by the Secretary of State last week show that in 1980 only 98,000 houses were started—in the private sector—half the figure on which the Green Paper was based—and the seasonally-adjusted figures for the public sector in the last quarter of 1980, when only 9,700 houses were started, suggest an annual rate of starts of little over 38,000, when the Green Paper estimated a need for 120,000. That is a disastrous record. In both housing sectors that record carries disastrous implications of what is likely to happen to anybody seeking housing in the foreseeable future.
The Select Committee predicted a shortfall of 500,000 dwellings by 1983–84. Every figure that has been published since then, and every informed opinion that has appeared, support our analysis. It is probable that the Committee was over-optimistic, because it did not know about the moratorium.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) referred to what that policy was doing not only to those in housing need but to the construction industry. I shall not repeat it. Instead, I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider his views and to read with great care the devastating criticisms of his Government's economic policies, which were neatly summarised in The Sunday Times issue from which he quoted so selectively. I hope that he will reform and change his policies while there is still time.

Mr. W. Benyon: Viewing the serried ranks on the Opposition Benches, one would not think that this was a major debate of criticism and censure of the Government for their housing policy. I had to leave the Chamber during the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), but I heard enough to know that it set the tone of the debate—a yah-boo debate, which gets us nowhere.
I do not deny the Opposition's right to criticise the Government's housing policy. I have done it myself from


time to time. But should there not be just a touch of humility, a passing reference to past responsibilities, when so much has gone before? After all, the right hon. Gentleman, as the Opposition's spokesman, could release overnight, at a stroke, literally millions of dwellings. I listened to the broadcast at lunchtime. "Are you sitting comfortably?" he asked. I wonder how he goes to bed comfortably at night when he is responsible for that.
The right hon. Gentleman need not say that he supports shorthold. All that he needs to say is "This is an experiment. We think that it is wrong. We do not agree with it. But if we came to power we shall not alter tenancies with less than five years to run." That would give the experiment a chance; everyone could judge whether it was working. People could judge whether it was as the right hon. Gentleman says, the start of Rachmanism, which none of us believe it is, because the restrictions to it are great enough. If the right hon. Gentleman did that, the matter would be proved one way or another. It would give shorthold a chance, but he is not prepared to do that.
Of course, the figures quoted by the Select Committee and in the article in The Sunday Times do not make good reading. I do not deny that. But they should be taken as a whole. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, they should be taken in conjunction with the figures for renovation. It is the whole that we are talking about.
However, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends frankly that I think that housing has had an unfair share of the reduction in Government expenditure. I fully support the main thrust of their economic policy, but the housing sector has had rather too much to bear compared with other parts of Government expenditure.
Last April I warned the Government that demand was running far in excess of supply, and that unless the position was altered we should get further and further behind. Events have proved that that is happening. All the factors in housing today are combining to create this.
The recession has meant that fewer people can buy. We estimate that in my own relatively prosperous area a minimum of 30 per cent. of those coming to the new city of Milton Keynes cannot afford a starter home, and are therefore entirely dependent on the rented sector.
The demographic bulge is leaving the schools and going to work. Therefore, the demand there is much greater. There will be more people looking for housing in the next few years then there were previously. There is also the general break-up of the structure of the family.
As I have said, I strongly support the main thrust of the Government's economic policy. So what can be done within the restraints of Government spending? The Government can forget the private rented sector as a means of producing any more dwellings, as long as the Opposition's policy on that matter continues.
Owner-occupation is limited by the general level of prosperity. Although we are not likely to see any great advance there, I strongly support the measures that my right hon. Friend has taken in this respect. However, I believe that the time has come to consider the general level of income tax and capital tax advantages for those who buy their own houses in step with the reductions that should also be made in the level of housing subsidies to the public sector.
That brings me to the public sector, in which I include the whole local authority rented sector and the housing

associations. In these difficult times the approach should be one of great selectivity, selective as to the type of housing—housing for the elderly, single people, and so on—and area. The effort should be concentrated on those areas where the need is acute. We need not worry about areas with housing surplus. The problems of, say, Hackney, are totally different from those of Harrogate. As my right hon. Friend acknowledged this afternoon, decisions on them can be made best by the local authorities.
I have two suggestions. First, when money is limited it is surely right to encourage those who can afford to do so to seek accommodation outside the public sector, in the private sector. I am sure that it comes as no surprise to my right hon. Friends when I say that this is where the right to buy hangs like an albatross around the Government's neck, in exactly the same way as municipalisation hung round the neck of the Labour Party when it was in power.
If the cost of a new council house is £20,000, which is, give or take a little, what it is now, it must be right to offer substantial inducements to those who can afford to do so to move into the private sector. The use of £20,000 in that way must be far more cost-effective than simply building a new house. But a council tenant of long standing has a far bigger inducement, under the right-to-buy provisions, to buy his own house. This is where the difficulty arises.
We shall hear a great deal tonight about higher rents, but I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the matter. They are inevitable if we are to get more money into housing generally.

Mr. Tony Durant: I am interested in my hon. Friend's view about mortgage relief, but he says at the same time that we need inducements to people to move into the private sector. Can he reconcile those two views?

Mr. Benyon: I was speaking of phased reduction of facilities available to owner-occupiers. What I am really saying is that if we divided the £20,000 that makes one house into inducements—bribery, if one likes to call it that—to the private tenant, that would enable him to start off his bid for his own house with a substantial capital sum and thereby assist the process. Therefore, I believe that the two suggestions are complementary.
If we could complement the stick of higher rents with the carrot of a grant to move into the private sector, everyone would benefit. But under the present housing investment programme allocation the money can be used only for three purposes: new building, mortgages and renovation. I urge the Government to consider this additional option, which would give local authorities more freedom to consider every possibility in a period of very tight money. There would have to be restrictions. The grant could not go to every tenant, or it would be a channel into a relatively cheap form of owner-occupation. Therefore, it must go to tenants of long standing, and it must be circumscribed in other ways as well.
I turn now to the areas of worst housing stress, which, by and large, are controlled by Labour authorities. Here we are in a "punch-on-the-nose" situation. The Government ask "Why are all these houses standing empty?" They are right to ask, for we have had the figures in reply to a question, and they are a disgrace. The council replies "You give us no money. We cannot make them habitable." So the stalemate continues.
Why not try a new approach—perhaps an experiment on a selective basis in the areas of one or two of the worst authorities?
For every untenanted house sold the council should be offered a substantial addition to their HIP allocation. I know that councils can keep a proportion of the amount for which the houses are sold. It would be cost-effective to offer councils a substantial addition to their HIP allocation. The addition could be made dependent on gaining a response within a certain period. It is worth trying to break the present stalemate.
We need a constructive and imaginative approach to housing. We do not need invective, because that will not get us anywhere. As my right hon. Friend said, there are no soft options in housing, particularly at the moment. We want not party politics but practical solutions.

Mr. David Winnick: As he has done before, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) criticised certain aspects of the Housing Act. We share that criticism. On average, the Government have imposed rent increases of £3.25 on many of our constituents. Those increases are most unfair. There is no justification for them. There might be some justification if it could be shown that the Government were building and improving dwellings at a great rate. Nevertheless, the imposition would still be unjust for our constituents.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, the Government have an appalling record. There is nothing to show for the rent increases. Indeed, I consider them highly provocative, particularly as the Government have placed a 6 per cent. limitation on wage increases, which is, in effect, an incomes policy. Many of my constituents will have to pay rent increases of between 20 and 25 per cent.

Mr. Robin Squire: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the justification for those rent increases depends not on the Government's building programme—whether or not that is good—but on whether the rent paid by tenants represents a legitimate proportion of their net wage in comparison with former proportions?

Mr. Winnick: Council tenants are now paying a fair share without further substantial rent increases. There is a link between the substantial rent increases and the right to buy. In effect, tenants are being told that it is better to buy. There are provisions in the Housing Act for discounts and so on. Many council tenants do not particularly want to buy their houses, but as a result of these rent increases, they may decide to do so. The Government hope that they will do that. That is another and important reason why we oppose those rent increases.
Before and during the general election campaign the Conservative Party said that matters should be left to local authorities to decide. Conservatives said that Whitehall should not impose a diktat, and so on. What has happened? The Government have imposed rent increases. They have told local authorities that regardless of their wishes and of local circumstances they must sell council dwellings.
The Secretary of State put up the best argument that he could to back up his very shoddy record. He pointed out that many tenants receive rent rebates. In earlier exchanges at Question Time I pointed out that councils would have

to give rebates on the new, higher rents. Some tenants may not have to pay £3.25, but they will have to pay a substantial increase all the same.
I am a member of the Select Committee on the Environment. It is understandable that it should believe that a reduced number of dwellings will be built in the public sector. It believes that 30,000 council dwellings, or fewer, will be built in the next two or three years. In England there were about 44,000 public sector housing starts last year. That is a disgraceful record, and will only increase the tremendous amount of hardship that already exists.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), who is Chairman of the Select Committee, the Committee estimates that there will be a shortage of about 500,000 dwellings within a few years. We are heading towards the severest housing crisis that we have seen for a long time. The Secretary of State can be accused of not having put up a fight in the Cabinet. The hon. Member for Buckingham said that as a result of cuts in public expenditure, housing had suffered disproportionately. We agree. The Secretary of State put up no defence in the Cabinet. The Cabinet is very leaky, and if the right hon. Gentleman had put up a fight we would have known about it.
The Secretary of State was a willing and enthusiastic partner to the housing cuts. He is the Secretary of State against housing. No comparison can be drawn between when the Labour Party was in office and now. Under the Labour Government there were cuts that I did not agree with. I made my position clear at the time. I considered that those cuts in public expenditure were unfortunate. Those of us who disagreed made our position clear. Those cuts were not, however, carried out as part of a deliberate housing policy.
The Government are trying to reduce the rented public sector to a minimum. They are encouraging council tenants to buy their own houses. As a result, they are reducing the number of council dwellings. They are not carrying out anything like an adequate building programme. The Government believe that the rented public sector should consist of "welfare housing". Many Tories believe that. They believe that the poorest and some of the elderly should receive council accommodation but that the rest should not.
I take a completely different view. Many people require council accommodation. I am certainly not against owneroccupation. The Labour Government introduced the option mortgage scheme. When the Labour Party was in office it took other measures to encourage owneroccupation. We believe that it is desirable. Nevertheless, we recognise that many—not just the poorest in our society—including semi-professional people such as teachers, are not in a position to get a mortgage. They rely on the local authority to house them. I do not see anything wrong in that, but the Government do.
The Government seem to be running a vendetta against council houses. They imply that it is shameful to be a council tenant unless one is elderly or poor. It is said that rented dwellings could be found in the private sector. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I believe that the pledge that we made about shortholds was right and proper.
I look upon the shorthold provision in the Housing Act as a charter for property spivs. I want people to be rehoused. I want them to have adequate and secure


accommodation. How can such accommodation exist if, after 12 months, the tenant does not know whether the tenancy will be renewed? We have almost returned to the provisions of the Tory Rent Act 1957. That is why we are against the provisions. We do not oppose them because of dogma or because of an obsession about private landlords. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not agree. However, owner-occupiers have security. If, as a result of certain leasehold provisions, they did not have security of tenure, the Labour Government put that right. We gave added security to owner-occupiers.
Similarly, when tenants are rehoused they should be given security and protection. When tenants bring up families they should not have to worry, month after month, about what will happen to them, or about where they can find other accommodation. They should not have to worry about whether they will be put out on to the streets. Government supporters may disagree passionately with us, but that is our view, and that is why we are against shorthold tenancies. We do not believe that they provide an answer to the housing crisis.
In the West Midlands, the waiting list totals about 100,000. In my borough, the list is more than 7,000, whereas in 1979 it was less than 4,000. In Walsall, 115 houses are under construction as a result of contracts made prior to April 1979. No new housing contracts have been placed since then. That is the position in a part of the country that has been designated a housing stress area, and where there is tremendous hardship. I have a constant number of people coming to my surgeries and writing to me imploring me to help them get houses. They are quite genuine cases. I repeat that, despite this, there are only 115 houses under construction, and no new housing contracts have been made since April 1979.
The Secretary of State spoke about improvements. He emphasised the need to carry out improvements and modernisations. The Minister of Housing and Construction is listening to this debate. I can tell him that there are many pre-war council dwellings in my borough that need modernising. We have a programme of 1,400. As a result of the reduction in the housing investment programme it is estimated that in the next financial year it is likely that the total number of dwellings modernised will be 100. What about those tenants who have been waiting year after year for their homes to be modernised and who now face substantial rent increases? They will still be required to pay those higher rents. As a result of the housing programme reduction, and the rest, they have to suffer. That is our accusation against the Government.
We understand that there are profound differences between the two sides of the House. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. However, I remind Government supporters that, apart from the most private details of a person's life, two factors matter to him most. They are employment and housing. Millions of ordinary people without substantial wealth, and who are not likely to inherit money, want two things, apart from personal happness. They want employment and to be able to remain in employment during their working lives, and they want decent, adequate accommodation, where they can live and bring up their families. Those are the two most essential things for millions of ordinary people, because achieving them will mean that they can live with dignity.
This Government have undermined both. Unemployment is at a level that has not been seen since the 1930s, and fewer council dwellings are being built today than at any time since the 1920s.
If the Government were to modify their policy—if they took building and construction workers out of the dole queues and allowed them to do their job of building and modernising homes—they would provide employment for those people so that they did not have to rot away their lives in dole queues, and in so doing they would provide the accommodation that our constituents need so desperately.
We ask the Government, perhaps without any chance of success, to change their housing policy and, by doing so, provide the essential homes that our people need.

Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tarnworth): I begin by declaring an interest as a consultant to a firm of chartered surveyors which probably, although I take no active part in the business, has members of the construction industry amongst its clients.
I congratulate the Opposition on the timing of this debate. Public housing has reached the crossroads. Taxpayers can no longer afford to provide vast subsidies indiscriminately. It is now time for everyone directly or indirectly involved—in this House and in the local authorities—to take a step back, to endeavour to cast aside dogma and prejudice, and to see precisely how we can house our people with pride and with dignity to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred on a more sensible, prudent and realistic basis.
I hope he will forgive me if I do not take up any of the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North. His constituency adjoins my own, and that is why I was on the point of intervening when he referred to the waiting list in the West Midlands. The House always listens to the hon. Gentleman with interest, but I think that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that I cannot agree with anything that he said other than his remark that everyone seeks to have a job and a home. Of course the argument is whether the majority of people look to the Government to provide the jobs and the homes or the private sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) speaks most eloquently about housing matters, and I found myself agreeing with him when he called for a bipartisan approach with the public and private sectors working hand in hand to provide the accommodation which is needed so desperately.
I also congratulate the Opposition on proposing this motion today because it coincides with the recent announcement by the Building Societies Association that the rate of increase in house prices declined sharply in 1980. That must be very important to those who have to make their pay packets cover their mortgage interest. The same Building Societies Association report reminded us that during the last year of the Labour Government the average prices of houses, new and second hand, rose by 26½ per cent. In the following 12 months, the first year of this Administration, they rose by only 7 per cent. The report goes on to say that prices are now more or less static, and the majority of home owners must be grateful to the Government for that.
The Opposition motion also comes at a time when the majority of the major banks have entered the market for providing mortgage finance. I hope that the greater


competition which the banks will provide to the building societies, especially at the lower end of the market—I am sure that they will lower their sights from £20,000 mortgages down to £5,000 mortgages—will mean a constant flow of funds to first-time young married buyers and help them to obtain homes more quickly. I hope also that that constant flow of funds which the banks will provide will eliminate for all time the risk of the house prices spiral which has always occurred with the peaks and troughs of building society finance.
I also believe that the greater competition which the banks will provide to the building societies will encourage building societies to be much more flexible about the types of property on which they are willing to lend, especially to first-time buyers. I have in mind the sort of house in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House started—an unimproved urban terrace property with two reception rooms, three bedrooms and no bathroom—and which some building societies do not consider to be eligible for a mortgage. If the increase in the available funds provided by the intervention of banks in the mortgage market makes properties of that kind mortgageable and saleable, that must help the construction industry.
This debate also coincides with the tragic case of Mrs. Jean Lawrence of Basingstoke. Hon. Members will recall that she let her house on a short tenancy and now finds, having returned from visiting relatives abroad, that she cannot regain possession. Her home is no longer her castle, despite the fact that the tenancy has expired.
In the Housing Act 1980, my right hon. Friend has moved a long way to encourage owners to increase the number of homes available for those who deserve the right to rent. The hon. Member for Walsall, North, referred especially to teachers. What he failed to say was that teachers and others who need to move around the country in their job do not necessarily want to rent from the local council. They do not mind from whom they rent. In fact, they would probably rather rent from a private owner whose property was likely to be more individual and more attractive than many council houses. My right hon. Friend has encouraged private owners to make property available to let by reducing the rent registration period from three years to two years. But there is still a long way to go before an owner will feel absolutely certain of a fair and realistic return on his investment, a return that keeps pace with inflation.
The law should be drawn tighter still to protect honest and respectable citizens, like Mrs. Lawrence, from the indignity, humiliation and utter absurdity of having to become a squatter in her own home. These laws are an utter disgrace and require immediate overhaul.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says "Hear, hear". I remind him that the Act to which I am referring, the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, was enacted by his Party.
This debate coincides with the reports of local authorities, mostly Labour-controlled authorities, which are "foot-dragging" in processing applications from tenants who wish to exercise the right to buy their own homes. This debate coincides with the decision just three weeks ago of the Lambeth county court which rightly

determined that a tenant who wished to exercise his right to buy was made to wait three months while his application was shuffled from one in-tray to another bureaucratic out-tray into one red-taped pending tray—a denial of the right of the individual to exercise his rights enacted in this place.
The debate coincides with the decision of one Labour-controlled local authority in the West Midlands, Sandwell, which at the moment is contemplating spending £20,000 of its ratepayers' money on printing a leaflet specifically designed to dissuade council tenants from exercising their democratic right to buy. I ask my right hon. Friend to investigate the activities of Lambeth and Sandwell and local authorities such as Gateshead metropolitan borough council, which has threatened tenants who wish to buy by putting problem tenants in homes next door to them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that a local authority has spent money trying to convince tenants not to buy. Perhaps he will tell the House how much money the Government have spent trying to get tenants to buy.

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Gentleman need only refer to the Official Report of the Committee proceedings on the Housing Bill to find an answer to his question. Is it not reasonable that a Government should spend a certain amount of taxpayers' money on telling the public what their rights are under the law?

Mr. Bernard Conlan: I think that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will regret the slur that he has made on the Gateshead council. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. When he checks the facts—and I shall assist him in doing that—he will find that the threat he alleges has not been made.

Mr. Heddle: I thank the hon. Member for his kind offer. I declare an interest here. I first met the hon. Gentleman when I was a candidate in February 1974 for Gateshead, West, and I have held him in the highest possible esteem ever since. I must apologise because I did not drop him a note, as is the custom of the House, to tell him that I intended to refer to Gateshead. I apologise on that score. I mentioned the subject merely because I participated in a BBC "News-night" programme some three weeks ago when Gateshead council was given as an example of coercion. So I have merely quoted an authoritative source, the BBC. If the hon. Gentleman is correct and I am incorrect, I apologise both on my own behalf and on behalf of the BBC.
I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure, if possible, that no member of NALGO is found negligent in the discharge of his duty in processing applications for the right to buy as swiftly, speedily and efficently as possible. The Government should try to create a balanced community in every town in the land by mixing owner-occupation with council tenancies, private tenancies and housing association tenancies. The right to buy one's own home—and here I depart from the philosophy of the Labour Party—is as fundamental as the right to buy one's own food and clothes. Anyone who seeks to deny that light is no friend of liberty and should be brought to book.
This debate comes at a time, too, when more and more councillors and housing officers are calling for a review of the housing waiting lists procedure with a view to removing the many distortions and duplications which are responsible for figures which distort the real picture of


housing need. Bogus housing demand leads to real hardship for cases of genuine need. That is why I sought to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North. He said that in his borough, which is almost adjacent to mine, there are 7,000 people on the council waiting list. After he has checked the facts with his chief executive, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me and confirm categorically that those 7,000 people are presently without a home.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that that will not be so. Only a small proportion of those 7,000 need to be housed by the local authority. A considerable number of those people are on the housing waiting list because if a suitable property became available they would like to exchange a two-bedroomed house for a for a threebedroomed house a three-bedroom house for a twobedroom house, perhaps a bungalow for a flat, perhaps a high-rise flat for a cottage. Those people are still on the housing waiting lists and are included in the figure of 7,000 quoted by the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
The debate comes at a time when one major building society at least has declared its involvement in providing finance for new house building and its dedication to extending its influence in the rented sector and the application of more concentrated muscle in urban renewal schemes. That must be right and good for the construction industry. I welcome the decision of the Abbey Housing Association to build homes to let at cost rents on a noprofit basis in my own constituency under the assured tenancy provisions of the Housing Act 1980.
The building societies are used to being treated like a political football. They are used to being attacked from both sides of the political fence. They are used to being accused of being improvident in their mortgage lending and, at the same time, being too conservative in their lending policy. But if more building societies took the initiative now provided for them in the Housing Act to build homes to rent and homes at cost for sale, and if more building societies took the initiative that has been taken by the Abbey to participate in housing action areas, the greater still would be their contribution to solving the housing problem and providing work for the construction industry.
This debate is timely, too, because it comes just four weeks before the Budget. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to agree that house buyers abound aplenty, that mortgage finance is readily and steadily available, and that the steady supply of land for building is cruicial to the construction industry if it is to continue to play its vital part in being the principal and prime provider of homes to rent and for sale—and, of course, the largest employer of skilled labour. A healthy construction industry breathes life, health, vitality and activity into a number of other coincident industries—for example, the domestic appliance industry, the furniture industry, and so on. I invite my right hon. Friend to agree that the last Administration's punitive Development Land Tax Act 1976, despite two significant improvements made by this Administration in the last two Budgets, still cries out for a radical overhaul. The Act fails to distinguish between windfall or speculative gains made in the perfect pursuit of construction and earned profits. It is a tax that becomes

payable even before it is due and irrespective of whether any profit is made on a development as a consequence of a deemed disposal.
The Act is a tax on inflation. It conflicts with the general acceptance—at least since the introduction of stock appreciation relief—of the need to avoid tax inflationary gains in the value of land held as stock in trade.
The Development Land Tax Act will eventually destroy the asset structure of the house building industry and will continue to put pressure on the demand for bank credit, unless it is radically altered and altered soon. The tax does not allow for development profits to be offset against development losses. It is, I believe, the only form of tax in this country where one cannot offset a loss against a profit. There are inadequate allowances for the cost of developments to be offset against the tax on gains—for example, the interest on the cost of holding land.
It is a tax that is so bureaucratic that it involves many senior managers in the construction industry spending a great deal of time unprofitably and unproductively wading through a plethora of some 28 forms sent to them from the development land tax office in Darlington.
I ask my right hon. Friend to have discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether the worst excesses and anomalies of the hideous inheritance of this Act, which is bugging the prosperity of the construction industry, cannot be eliminated in the forthcoming Budget or the next one.
The only way that the nation can put its own house in order is by adopting a bipartisan, undogmatic approach, without prejudice, where the public sector can walk hand in hand with the private sector. The distortion and homelessness created by generations of rent control and security of tenure will only cause council house waiting lists to grow longer and longer. The Labour Party should adopt the policy put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. For goodness sake, let us give shorthold a try. If the Labour Party ever returns to government, it can then have the satisfaction of saying "We told you so." For the benefit of the homeless, who really would like the right to rent—those for whom Labour Members today shed crocodile tears—I ask them to give shorthold an opportunity to succeed. Millions upon millions crave the right and the responsibility to own their own homes. I ask the Labour Party to give them a chance.
Councils can build homes for those in genuine need only if the money locked up in bricks and mortar is released. The Opposition should encourage Labourcontrolled authorities to sell as many of their council houses as possible in order to recycle the taxpayers' money to provide homes for those in genuine need.
Building societies and the private sector have a constructive part to play in providing homes to rent. I prophesy that the construction industry will rise to the challenge, as it has done before, and meet the demand that undoubtedly exists in the private sector if it is freed from petty bureaucracy and excessive taxation.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I hope that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) will forgive me if I do not follow him.
I shall try to show that the Secretary of State is mainly responsible for the disastrous housing situation. He would be more truly known as the "Anti-Housing Minister" or the


"No-Housing Minister." I do not know how he has the effrontery to come to the House. He should resign. He has already halved the public and private housing programme. Last year's total was the worst since the 1920s.
I go further. Although I have not checked, I believe that last year's programme was the worst this century, with the exception of one year in the 1920s. This year's will be lower still.
The right hon. Gentleman is using a five-barelled gun to kill housing. He has used five brutal shots to halve the programme: a six-month halt to all building improvement and loans to private buyers from local authorities; a compulsory rent increase of £3·25 a week plus huge rate rises; extremely high interest rates for mortgagors; a 51 per cent. cut in all housing expenditure by 1983; and finally, he has compelled local authorities to sell their best houses.
The £3·25 average rent rise was caused by slashing the housing subsidy. It follows a £2·10 increase last year. However, as was clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, at the same time he is increasing the subsidy to owner-occupiers by £500 million a year. There are about 6 million council tenants and about 6 million mortgagors. The total subsidies that they receive are also about equal.
May I make it clear that the Labour Party is not in favour of reducing tax relief for owner-occupiers, except for the very rich, who get a 60 per cent. reduction on their mortgage interest payments? That rate should be reduced to the standard rate of 30 per cent. We say "Hands off the subsidy for both sections". It is the Tory Party leaders who are attempting to set owner-occupiers against council tenants. Both sections are suffering the same burden—inordinate interest charges—and they should unite against them.
However, I repeat that it is grossly unfair to cut a tenant's subsidy by £5·35 a week over two years, while increasing the subsidy to owner-occupiers by £500 million.

Mr. Latham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the mortgage interest rate goes down again, as I am sure that it will shortly, the subsidy to owner-occupiers will fall?

Mr. Allaun: Yes, but the mortgage interest rate has been very high since this Government came to office. If it goes up, the subsidy also goes up. I do not blame the building societies for the very high interest rates. They are even greater victims of the high mimimum lending rate than the remainder of us.
Housing expenditure has been cut by 51 per cent. There are 22 months to go before we reach 1983, when the colossal arms programme will have been increased by no less than 14 per cent. in real terms. There is no shortage of money. It is being put to the wrong use.
The Government's housing cuts have been condemned by almost everyone with the exception of the Cabinet and hon. Members on the Government Benches. The Opposition comes from non-political organisations and other organisations which are normally pro-Conservative such as the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, which through CABIN has contributed millions to the Tory election fund.
There is a long list of those who oppose this Government's housing policy: the Royal Institute of British Architects, the National Federation of Building

Trades Employers, the Group of Eight, the NEDC, Shelter, the Association of Municipal authorities, most other local authorities, the TUC, the building trade unions, the housing societies and the National Federation of Tenants Associations. I need not add that the Labour Party even more strongly condemns that policy.
Local authorities have been put in an impossible position. The men and women in the Cabinet cause the misery, but some people mistakenly blame the town hall, since it is nearest at hand. It has to put the rents up and the local authority cannot react. It is bound by Government decisions and cuts in its money supply. It is in a straightjacket. All the councillors can do is make it unmistakeably clear that the blame lies on the Ministers in Westminster.
What is the solution to Britain's problem? I believe that it is to dash for growth and to spend our way out of the slump. It is to set the 300,000 unemployed building operatives building houses for the 1.2 million families on the waiting list. By 1984 that number will have grown to 2 million.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth referred to bogus waiting lists. Most local authorities check the waiting list every year. Moreover, he should know that thousands of tenants do not bother to put their names on the waiting list because they know that it is a waste of time and that their situation is hopeless.
The cost to the Chancellor of keeping a man on average pay on the dole, if he has a wife and two children, is £120 a week including loss of income tax. For that sum the man could be fully employed and could be simultaneously adding more than that sum in production for the country's good.
Far from killing the housing industry, the Government should be massively increasing it. It is clear that they will not. That is one reason why the Government should be put out.
The Secretary of State talked about inflation. However, Government expenditure is as much when those men are unemployed as when they are working. If they were working, there would be products to balance their wages and therefore there would be less inflation.
Apart from the financial loss, one must consider the human cost. Last Sunday a father and mother who have two children, one aged 3 years and the other aged 10 months, came to my advice bureau. They live in a twobedroomed flat, but they cannot use either of the bedrooms because of excessive damp and mould. That is the curse of the working classes. Oscar Wilde once said it was not drink that was the curse of the working classes but that work was the curse of the drinking classes. I believe that today, damp is the curse of the working classes.
All four of that family sleep in the living-room. The 10-months-old baby is in Pendlebury children's hospital. The other little girl has skin and lung complaints, which is not unnatural in those circumstances. The mother is taking tablets for her nerves and has recently lost 2 stones in weight. They have been in that accommodation for three years, since the first baby was bora. Thousands of families are in such circumstances. The Government are doing little to help but are worsening their chances. What hope is there for that family unless the Secretary of State takes the locks off housing and gives the councils the go-ahead and the subsidy?
If the Secretary of State wants to see how the shortage can break up families and cause domestic unhappiness, I suggest that he watches the Labour Party political


broadcast on television at 9 o'clock tonight. I conclude as I began—let the Secretary of State resign and let us get the Government out as soon as possible.

Mr. Tony Durant: As usual, the same hon. Members are here for the housing debate. The only difference is that they have changed sides. The same arguments are repeated each time. Opposition Members defend their Government, saying that they were doing their best—with the exception of the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), both of whom attacked the housing record of their Government. The rest simply changed positions and put forward different arguments.
We must agree that in recent times the story of housing has not been a good one, whichever party has been in power. The nation has overspent beyond its wildest imagination. During the period of office of the Labour Government the national debt rose from £40 billion to £80 billion. They borrowed more money than all the Governments before them, since the Crimean war. That is not a bad record of borrowing. It has to be paid for by someone—probably my children.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Who to?

Mr. Durant: Probably to the National Union of Mineworkers' investment in Government stock. It is involved in the national debt. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is paid to everyone.
The construction industry is a key industry. We have talked less about it so far than about housing. One of the problems of the construction industry is that it became too orientated to the public sector. Much of British industry has gone through that phase of constant dependence on the public sector for its business and activity. It is going through a traumatic time in shifting from the public to the private sector. It is uncomfortable, but it has to be done.
One of the industry's key problems is lack of land. With respect to my Government, I do not believe that they are getting on with this matter fast enough. They are not kicking the nationalised industries hard enough, or looking at their Departments hard enough. The Ministry of Defence is a good example. Much could be done to release land. More must be done at ministerial level to release land that could be used for development. Developers and the construction industry need land.
We have heard that planning is being speeded up, but it is too slow. I heard about a company that put up a plant in Scotland. It took two and a half years to obtain permission to build the darned thing. That is barmy, by anyone's standards. We must speed up planning. We must be more active and virile about it. I should like to run a competition between local authorities to see how many plans they could pass and not how many they could stop, so that councillors could say that they had passed X number of plans and not that they had stopped them. That is one of the main handicaps in getting things going.
We have also agreed that there are different needs for housing in different parts of the country. It has become more of a regional argument than a national one. We must understand that in all our debates on housing. The House Builders Federation has made a list of things that it would like to see done. I support some of them. It says that the

minimum lending rate should be reduced. That is also my belief. It is too high, and it ought to come down now. I am not convinced by the Government's arguments about it. It is time for a movement on this front.
There should also be capital tax allowances for factory development. There are allowances for the equipment inside factories, but not for the structure. The construction industry would receive tremendous help if capital allowances were more liberal for the buildings, and not only for the equipment inside. There should be an uplift of the exemption on stamp duty, to £30,000. The level is too low for the first-time buyer and the small purchaser. An examination of VAT on repairs and maintenance might be considered.
Local government often causes difficulties for the construction industry because it does not take the moratorium seriously. It goes ahead on the assumption that it can spend more, and puts things out to contract. The contractors make estimates and spend a great deal of money, then the moratorium applies, and they are left holding the baby. That is entirely due to local government assuming that the Government will not be tough with the moratorium. I hope that that lesson has now been learnt and that there will be a more cautious approach.
The budget of the housing associations was reduced by 11 per cent. in 1979–80, but the Government have this year maintained it, in real terms, at the new figure. I welcome the ending of the double scrutiny of plans, by the DOE and the Housing Corporation, which caused confusion for housing associations. I urge the Minister for Housing and Construction to consider co-operatives. I am not convinced that the Housing Corporation takes the cooperative movement seriously enough. Most co-operatives are the result of pressure, either from the threat of being taken over by developers or many other pressures. Much depends on the good will of the people in those properties. I urge the Minister to ask the chairman of the corporation not to exclude the movement from the corporation's work.
It is a pity that the Labour Party did not give shorthold a chance. It took a dogmatic view, instead of simply reserving its position and letting the thing run. Shorthold was, after all, an attempt to do something.
Mrs. Jean Lawrence has been mentioned. Since she lives near my constituency, I should like to read from an editorial that appeared in my local paper. I assure the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), whose tendency to quote had to be curbed, that it is only a short quotation. Under the heading "Homeless", it said:
The plight of widow Mrs. Jean Lawrence highlights once again the urgent need for action in the law relating to tenants.
When her husband died Mrs. Lawrence went away to America for three months, letting her home to a family of three. In the leasing agreement a period of three months was specifically stated. But when Mrs. Lawrence returned home the family refused to move. She was left homeless herself until she was able to enter her own home when the family was out and she exerted squatters' rights.
Mrs. Lawrence has shown the law to be an absolute nonsense in this respect. The agreement was specific. It is her home. She always intended returning. The true rights of the homeless must be preserved, of course, but in the name of justice the stupidities of the law must be changed.
The local authority, rightly, has to take action against that woman. It is not the council's fault—it is the current law of the land—but it is nonsense that this should happen.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that when there are disputed rights it is essential for the law to provide that disputes must be resolved by the


courts? There is now an expedited procedure, which the lady could have used to obtain a court order in a matter of days. Does the hon. Gentleman not also accept the point made in a letter to The Times, I think yesterday, by Professor Martin Partington, that the Rent Acts should be reviewed, but on the basis of what the law is and not what the media pretend it to be?

Mr. Durant: The problem is that that lady has no confidence in the courts, because the general experience is that such families are given time. I am not criticising the courts, but she took that action because she felt—wrongly, I accept—that there was no assurance that she would get her rights. I quote that only to show what stupidities we create when we pass laws.
It was this Government who gave security of tenure to council tenants. The Labour Government produced a Green Paper on the Rent Acts that was useful and helpful but —I wonder whether it is symbolic that the document had a yellow cover—they ran away from implementing it. The proposals if the document could have done something about the Rent Acts.
I urge the Government to work hard on the Treasury for an increase in the money available for improvement grants. This is a better part of the housing record, but it is still the right place for the money. It will provide work for many small builders and opportunities for ancillary trades, such as those who make window frames, pipes and toilets. Such action would help the construction industry during a difficult time and provide work, particularly for skilled men. It would keep the industry alive.
There are some signs of an uplift in industrial building, which is always a sign of confidence in the future, and there are signs of an increase in house building. The improvement is marginal and we must not get carried away, but there are some glimmers of light. If the Government take seriously some of the points made in this debate the housing picture may improve.

Mr. Roy Hughes: My overriding thought in this debate is about the level of unemployment. The figure is nearly 2½ million, with reliable forecasts that it will rise to 3 million soon and to 3½ million by the middle of next year. There have even been astronomical forecasts by some influential bodies that the figure will eventually rise to 5 million. To accept this situation and do little about it means adhering to the law of the jungle. That is what the Secretary of State seemed to be doing today. He talked as if it was "back to the 1930s" with a vengeance.
Many school leavers are condemned to the scrap heap before they have been employed at all. The economy is certainly suffering from a lack of effective demand. The classic Keynesian analysis now applies. The capacity is available, the plant is lying idle and builders' yards are becoming almost ancient monuments. Modern Government must intervene to regulate things and create demand. This is where the building and construction industry has such a vital part to play in stimulating the economy and providing jobs for building workers on the dole. The economy generally would benefit from the spinoff.
Housing, both public and private, has been run down to desperate levels. A housing drive at the present time, apart from the beneficial employment factors, could also supply a basic human need. We are facing a rapidly

deteriorating housing situation. Many hon. Members could speak from their experience in their surgeries and from their postbags of young couples, perhaps living with in-laws, seeking a home for the first time; of others living in a rented flat, in some cases in only one room, with inadequate facilities. Often the premises are damp. There may be a young child with a chest complaint. Often, too, those young couples are paying a prohibitive rent.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) mentioned housing waiting lists. In my constituency there are over 5,000 applicants on the waiting list, but the housing manager assures me that 3,500 of that number are what are known as active applicants—in other words, people who are urgently seeking a home. Likewise, he assures me that many young couples, clue to this deteriorating situation, will now have to wait several years for a home of their own.
All over the country, too, housing maintenance is being neglected. This is merely building up a legacy of unfit houses for future generations to deal with.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scheme for improvement and renovation grants introduced on 15 December was the largest and most imaginative ever produced? It will enable the sub-standard houses to which he is referring to be put into good repair. Whatever is done about new starts or new housing, this is a really magnificent Government policy which can ensure that many of the sub-standard houses can be brought to a condition in which his constituents will be able to have a home.

Mr. Hughes: My impression is a little different from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. When we have looked at the question of the unfitness of older properties, we have found that there has been little incentive for owners to improve those properties. The grants are still insufficient to keep up with the level of inflation, and the ball is certainly in the Government's court. If no action is taken over those properties, eventually they will be sacrificed to the bulldozer. The cost then will be not only the financial one of providing new homes; there will also be the tremendous social cost involved in breaking up communities.
In Newport there has been much redevelopment work, with the clearance of older areas. Many of the properties were built in the last century. This work has been going on for the past 16 or 17 years. The situation in Newport has recently come to the attention of the Daily Mail, which on 5 February made some sarcastic references to it. Such references do not help, because the work that is going ahead is essential. It is up to the Government to provide the money so that the work can be carried out as expeditiously as possible. As on many other issues, the Daily Mail was again tending to mislead its readers.
It is worth pointing out that even in these difficult economic times Newport is still attracting important sections of industry. For instance, there has been the recent Inmos project for the microchip industry, which will eventually provide about 3,000 jobs. Work has started on that establishment. Likewise, Newport is a strong candidate for the new Nissan car plant, which would provide considerable work for the building and construction industry.
Newport is geographically well situated, with motorway links to the Midlands and to the South-East of


England, high speed trains, and also an efficient port. Given a favourable boost to the economy—and particualarly the stimulation of the building and construction industry—Newport can again emerge as a key industrial town, helping to provide the wealth of the nation, and with a pleasant environment for people to live in.
What we need now are modern homes as well. The building and construction industry has a major role to play in stimulating demand and boosting the economy. Housing is vital in this respect, in addition to providing a basic and crying social need. Employers and trade unions agree that this need is not being met by the Government. The Government could make a start by introducing a dramatic reduction in the level of interest rates. That would help mortgage payers—particularly young couples who have undertaken the venture of going in for their own homes. But the tragedy is that the Government are bound to their liblind dogma, which is leading to the wholesale destruction of industry and to a rapidly deteriorating housing position. The result of their policy is mass unemployment.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I do not intend to be long, I propose, subject to one thing, to deal with the private rented sector. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been absent from the Chamber between 6 pm and 7 pm. I was serving on the Select Committee on Social Services. That was the reason for my absence.
It is a very sad fact that for the private rented sector the Labour Party shows a hysteria almost like that shown during the Spanish Civil War. It was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in January 1980, said that the private landlord was an anachronism in the modern age. It was the present Opposition Front Bench spokesman—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—who said quite recently that he subscribed entirely to that view, and that the Labour Party proposed the abolition of shorthold tenancies.
I should like to deal briefly with one or two matters of great importance in relation to the policy of the Government. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—was largely responsible for the drafting of circular 21/80, beyond doubt one of the finest circulars ever sent out by his Department. It deals with the Government's policy for carrying out an immense extension of the capacity that exists for grants to be given to people in the private sector, whether landlord, tenant, or owner-occupier, on a scale far greater than anything put forward by any Government hitherto. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to this aspect in an intervention. If we proceed to restore many thousands of sub-standard houses to enable them to be purchased by owner-occupiers, including tenants who are already in them, we can extend improvement grants and raise standards. In that way we can maintain the old stock of houses, both pre-1900 and post-1900.
The Government have realised that. They have further realised that although only 13 per cent. of our housing

supply is in the private rented sector, it is plain that not only housing associations but private landlords can play a real part in restoring to decent standards houses that can provide many homes in constituencies such as the one represented by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes).
Labour Members seem to have the crazy idea that a rented house must be a council house. I accept that in this context it must be a rented house, but the controls that the Government have retained mean that if a person is to obtain an improvement grant or a renovation grant to bring the property to standards that are first-class, he has to guarantee that the property will be rented for five years. It is necessary to give an undertaking so to do, and if that is not done there is an obligation to return the grant that is outstanding.
The Government have increased the grants to 75 per cent., and in cases of hardship it is possible to obtain a 90 per cent. grant. They have increased the standards so that properties can be brought to the standards expected of a modern home. This will enable estates throughout the country, but especially in the Midlands, the North and the North-East—where properties in some areas have been declining for many years—to be brought to decent standards with effective control over the period of the letting.
It is most unfortunate that Labour Members do not give a fair wind to shorthold tenancies. I have an interest to declare. I was one of two hon. Members responsible for inventing the idea of shorthold tenancies. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may remember that I wrote to him a year ago asking for certain alterations in the present structure of shorthold tenancies. I ventured to observe that the scheme would fail because the rent officers would fix rents on the old criteria—for example, fair rents and rent-regulated tenancies. If that is done for vacant property, which is the prerequisite of the shorthold tenancy, the rent cannot be fixed at such a low level. That is because no one will accept such a tenancy.
I decided to find two concrete examples in the London area and to go to the rent officer to ask him to inspect the properties. I found one such property, which was inspected by a rent officer. Two other properties were found by two of my friends and they, too, were inspected. The rent officers were extremely efficient, courteous and quick in carrying out their inspections. They found in each instance that the premises would qualify for a shorthold tenancy. However, on each occasion they suggested a rent that was 25 per cent. below what the landlord and tenant were prepared to agree.
The result is that in the London area and in many other areas no one is making use of shorthold tenancies. If it gives any contentment to Labour Members, I do not think that they will need to bother to abolish the scheme. If it continues as at present it will be totally ineffective. I always said that it would be ineffective unless we provided for freely negotiable rents.
My right hon. and hon. Friends argue that it is better to have a considerable volume of property in our major cities that is available for letting to the youth of the country—it is wanted largely by young people, including young executives, who work in our major cities—at rents that may be considered too high than to have no such property available for letting.
There are, for example, nearly 2,000 empty council properties in Manchester. As in London, there are


thousands of houses that could come on to the market and provide satisfactory tenancies, both furnished and unfurnished, for young people in London and throughout the rest of the country, but it seems that rent officers are arriving at rents that are far below those that would result from the application of reasonable criteria.
What can be done about it? Valuations should be made by district valuers. They have the necessary experience and know-how. It is their task, and they can do it very well. The rent officers have never been given any new criteria to use in their assessment of the appropriate rents for shorthold tenancies. It is necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to send out criteria to rent officers under the 1980 Act. The guidelines should provide that rent officers consult district valuers in fixing rents that are fair and that they must do so on the basis that it is an empty property when arriving at a fair and reasonable rent between the parties. If they pursue that line, we shall be proceeding along the right road and we shall be able to make shorthold tenancies useful in at leat some estates.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. and learned Gentleman has undertaken a survey at great effort and expense, and he is repudiating the suggestion made by the Secretary of State and Conservative Members that the party position that has been taken on shorthold tenancies is preventing the success of the scheme. He is arguing that the real reason for the lack of success of these tenancies is that rents are being set at levels that are lower than those that would apply if the free market were operating. If he is saying that, will he make it clear to the House that that is his argument, so that we may quote him in future?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am saying that the opposition of Labour Members to shorthold tenancies led the Department to advise Ministers to make certain alterations to the scheme which are not in accord with the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who is now the Minister for Social Security, and myself. I refer to the recommendations that we published on shorthold tenancies. That change of policy, which was made largely under pressure from Labour Members, has meant that the rent officers, having no different criteria for shorthold tenancies than for rent-resricted tenancies, are fixing rents that would be in line with rents for rent-controlled or rent-resricted tenancies.
The consequence is that shorthold tenancy rents are ludicrously low. On average, they should be 25 per cent. higher. If they were 5 per cent. higher, there would be an availability of immediate accommodation for all those who want it at rents that they would be happy to pay.
I am agreeing with the attitude of Labour Members in one respect. I agree that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have low rents and availability. People must be able to modernise their premises, and that is extremely expensive. They must do that if they are to get a fair return on their investment. If that is to be achieved, they must be able to charge a rent that is along the lines of a rent that could be perfectly properly fixed by a district valuer. If that were done we could make shortholds effective, and if a Labour Government ever came to office again they would find that by then we should have all the private rented accommodation required to meet the needs of those in the major cities of this country.
We must continue the Government's policy to encourage everybody to repair sub-standard houses by

means of maintenance grants and other grants that are now readily available. Let us not forget that these include home insulation grants for the elderly and other special grants for those who suffer hardship, all of which are now available as a result of the Govenment's policy.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on his speech in opening the debate. He scored a whole series of bullseyes, and the Opposition should be grateful to him. He set the tone of the debate—a tone that is very much required in the present situation.
I must declare an interest. Apart for the fact that I think I have spoken in just about every construction debate since I came to the House, I happen to be a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. Prior to becoming a member of UCATT, I was a member of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, one of the bodies that came together with other unions to make UCATT.
I also declare another interest, if I may be forgiven a personal reminiscence. When I got married in 1945, on coming out of the Forces at the end of the war, I lived for 12 years in rooms. I was a building worker, building houses on construction sites of all kinds. My wife was a highly skilled secretary working in the hospital service. We could not get a house. Finally, after scraping money together for 12 years, we managed to get a mortgage and we bought a house, or at least put some money down on a house. I mention that personal reminiscence because, if the Government's policy is continued, working people such as my wife and I will be—indeed, they are being—faced with that kind of problem once again.
When constituents come to me they say "Of course, Mr. Heffer, you do not understand our housing problems", because they think of me living in a house of my own, but I do understand. I know the tensions and problems that are caused by living in restricted rooms and the difficulties that occur for people living with in-laws. Even if they are not living with in-laws, when the first child comes along the people from whom they rent the room or rooms no longer want them there.
Although we never solved those problems entirely, we were gradually beginning to ease people out of that situation. For thousands, the problems were not yet solved. Nevertheless, one could see some light at the end of the tunnel. With the Government's policies we are returning to those problems, and that, in itself, is an indictment of what the Government are doing.
The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) was generous enough to admit that I was very critical of my own Government's housing programme. I was indeed, and I am in no way ashamed of that. In my view, we did not build enough houses and we did not tackle the problem as we should have done. But when I consider what the Conservative Government are doing, I realise that the Labour Government's cuts that we criticised were chicken-feed compared with the situation that is now developing.
I wish to say a few words about the construction industry and the effect of Government policy upon the workers and the employers in that industry. I am becoming somewhat embarrassed of late, because I remember what happened during the run-up to the last general election. I was one of the prime targets for the employers. I was the architect of "Building for Britain" and the individual who,


with our committee, worked out the idea of extending public ownership in the construction industry and devising a scheme for building workers to get rid of casualisation. Clearly, in those days I was a prime target and I never received a brief from the building employers, or if I did it was not one that I could support in the House or read with any interest. Now, however, it is becoming embarrassing, because all of my hon. Friends who are interested in the construction industry receive briefs from employers in the industry. They are sent particularly to Labour Members.
I cite the example of a brief dated 6 February—just a few days ago. It starts with a speech by Mr. Morrison Dunbar, president of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. He says:
NFBTE has increasingly come to feel that the way certain aspects of the Government's policies are being managed is having a quite disproportionately damaging effect on the construction industry.
He continues:
In particular its management of public sector housing programmes and its bias towards cuts in capital, rather than current, expenditure show a degree of inconsistency and expediency which must give us grounds for serious concern.
Mr. Dunbar then gives the figures and says:
Construction jobless figures have increased from 157,000 to 280,000 in the 12 months between November 1979 and November 1980. These extra 120,000-odd unemployed construction workers will cost at least £600 million.
It is no wonder that public expenditure is cut in one direction and increased in another. The idea that the Government have actually brought down the public sector borrowing requirement is ludicrous. Their public borrowing is greater than any previous Government as a result of the increase in unemployment.
Mr. Dunbar makes the point:
I do not claim that £600 million of public money invested in construction projects this year would absorb all of those extra unemployed construction workers …
But at least we would be talking about productive investment rather than the waste of dole money and if some such expenditure went into heavily labour-intensive repair and maintenance work then more jobless per pounds of investment would be soaked up.
That is good common sense. I do not know the gentleman, but if he wishes to join the Labour Party, we shall be happy to have him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]. I am talking about the only Labour Party. I did not know that there was any other Labour Party.
Let us consider the effect of unemployment upon the future of the industry. Our industry helps young people to acquire skills. They are no longer getting that opportunity. When the recession finally ends—when the Government are out of office and we have sensible policies once again—we shall find that we do not have the trained youngsters to do the jobs. All those young people are not getting the chance to acquire skills. The biggest crime of all is that young people should leave school with no opportunity to learn a trade or obtain a job. That is another indictment of the Government.
I do not intend to make a long speech, because I realise that other hon. Members wish to intervene. I wanted to emphasise those two points—the effect that unemployment is having on the future of the industry and on youth because of no opportunities, and the effect of the cuts in the housing programme. They are the worse housing levels that we have ever had, certainly since well before the end of the Second World War. They take us back even before the 1930s.
There must be a more positive attitude towards the construction industry. There must be a reversal of Government policy. Public expenditure for the construction industry is a necessity. I worked once for the firm of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). Had he known that I worked in it, he would probably have sacked me. As a construction employer, he must admit that over the years well over half of the work that his company has undertaken has been carried out for public authorities. Most construction work is in the public sector, be it the local government sector or the central Government sector. That is why the Government must reverse their policy and return to developing public expenditure to help the construction industry.
In addition, we must pursue policies of the sort that have been laid down by the Labour Party in its programme "Building for the Future". I hope that this time the employers' federation will adopt a more reasonable attitude towards us and read the documents, instead of attacking us for some things that we have never said.

Mr. Michael Latham: I count it a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) because I know that he speaks with great experience of the construction industry. In the seven years that I have been a Member of the House, we have both taken part in many debates on housing and construction. The hon. Gentleman is always listened to with great attention, particularly by those hon. Members who are concerned about the industry. By definition, that is virtually everyone who is presently in the Chamber, otherwise they would not be here.
The hon. Gentleman declared an interest. As the House knows, I also have an interest as a director of house building company. I am also a member of the board of management of Shelter, although that is not a paid position.
I had not intended to intervene, but as I listened to the debate I felt that I would do so in order to make two points. My first relates to the work of the Select Committee. My second relates to land and planning,, which has hardly been referred to at all except by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). I hope that I do not have to justify talking about land and planning, because obviously it is central to our housing policy that there should be an adequate supply of land.
I first want to deal with the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) is, of course, the Chairman of that Select Committee. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction that I was not satisfied with the Government's reply to the report of that Select Committee. Although I was not a member of the Select Committee, I read its proceedings. It did a great deal of work in producing projections of housing output, given a number of possible assumptions about the level of council house rents and sales geared to the forecasts put forward in last year's White Paper on public expenditure.
It was perfectly open to the Government when they went before the Select Committee to say, as they did, "We do not know what the outturn will be, because this depends on a great many different decisions—first, on whether private individuals want to buy their houses or improve them and, secondly, on how much land and houses local


authorities sell". However, I do not think that is was right, reasonable or fair for the Government to say "We do not know", but when the Select Committee itself produced alternative figures after a considerable amount of work to suggest that it had not understood the Green Paper published by the previous Government.

Mrs. Renée Short: I remind the hon. Gentleman that all Ministers seem to be saying that in response to Select Committe reports.

Mr. Latham: This is not a wholly partisan criticism, because for the whole of the previous Parliament I served on the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. We were not always wholly satisfied with the replies that we received from Ministers.
There is always some degree of tension, which is perhaps desirable, between a Select Committee and the Department at which it is looking. On the whole that is quite a good thing. However, in his reply to the Select Committee, my hon. Friend failed to deal with the proper issue. He said that the Select Committee had produced figures which in his view misunderstood the 1977 Green Paper. That is not good enough.
If my hon. Friend feels that the Select Committee's estimates were wrong, he ought to say so and state why. In addition, he ought to produce his alternative projections. One thing which the Select Committee is perfectly entitled to do—just as the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee did with the Labour Government in 1976–77—is to probe the assumptions behind the public expenditure White Paper as to how many houses will be produced and what the outturn will be. That is the job of a Select Committee. When my hon. Friend next replies to a Select Committee report, I hope that he will not do it in so dismissive a way as he did on this occasion.
It gives me no pleasure to say that, because I have great personal respect for my hon. Friend. However, it is the duty of Back Benchers on whichever side of the House to stand up for the rights of the Select Committees which are important to our processes of government.
I now turn to the question of land. As I said earlier, I hope that I do not need to apologise for discussing this extremely important issue. Certainly, with regard to the private housing sector, which is central to the Government's housing strategy, there is a need for an adequate supply of building land. However, my hon. Friend and Ministers at the Department of the Environment are to some extent faced with conflicting pressures. On the one hand there is the pressure of builders to have more land for development and to have it now. On the other hand there is the perfectly proper pressure of farmers, agriculturists and conservationists to defend good agricultural land and to ensure that it is not released unnecessarily. It is not easy to achieve a proper balance.
We should also look carefully at the structure plans which are now coming forward and consider their contents. I was pleased at the speed with which the Department of the Environment cleared the number of structure plans which came forward. When we inherited this from the previous Administration, the whole procedure had got totally stuck. Many structure plans were just sitting in the Department and had been there for far too long. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave decisions quickly and he has continued to do so. That is entirely to the good.
He has also taken a number of extremely constructive steps to improve the situation, which ought to be welcomed. The circular on land produced last year is one of the most constructive documents to appear for some time. It emphasised the need for a five-year supply of building land. However, it also emphasised the need for consultations between local authorities and builders to ensure that that five-year supply is achieved.
I hope that my hon. Friend, either in his reply tonight or subsequently in correspondence, will be able to assure me that the decisions on structure plans which have been taken by Ministers are directed towards two things. The first to ensure that there really is a five-year supply of land in structure plans and at realistic rates for building, not those of the past six to 12 months. The second is to ensure that the structure plan which he is approving, and which is now monitored in discussions and consultations between house builders and local authorities are realistic. He will know that the House Builders Federation has, on several occasions recently, produced reports of its joint studies with local authorities which have found that the five-year structure plan targets did not provide a realistic assessment of the amount of land which is available or which is needed to meet housing demand. If we are not to have a serious shortage of land ready for building, with planning permission, with services and all the necessary equipment needed for getting on with the job by the middle of this decade, it is essential that the right decisions are taken now. Let us get that right.

Sir Albert Costain: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important factors is that the land should be available where people want to live? Too many planning authorities say that they have enough land but that people want to live in the wrong place. They are not God. They must allow people to live where they want to live.

Mr. Latham: My right hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) has put his finger on an important point which is dealt with in the Government circular—the question of the marketing considerations. That was also alluded to in the circular produced by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) for the Labour Government. However, when he is approving structure plans I hope that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the use made of spoilt and derelict and marginal land. That land is important. The Civic Trust produced some disturbing figures in a report last year which suggested that up to 500,000 acres of land might be available for development. It is spoilt or marginal but not good agricultural land. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity when he brings the Countryside and Wildlife Bill before the House to introduce another clause to ensure that the protection of agricultural land and the use of spoilt land will become an important consideration for local planning authorities in carrying out their duties. A declaratory clause of that sort in the Bill would be useful.
In dealing with land it is important that we try to overcome problems of land ownership, and the relationship of the State towards land ownership. That should be settled once and for all. We have made considerable changes over the years.
Since 1945 the House has done a great deal to the law on land and betterment. In 1947 development land was


nationalised and so were development values, subject to the £300 million compensation fund. In 1953 and 1954 that was unscrambled by a Conservative Government, and the public-sector owned land changed hands at current use value and the private sector land changed hands at market value. In 1959 the concept of total market value was adopted.
In 1962, a short-term capital gains tax was introduced, and in 1965 a long-term capital gains tax. In 1967 we had a land commission with a 40 per cent. betterment levy, intended to increase to 50 per cent. In 1971 that was abolished and capital gains tax was reintroduced. In 1973 a development gains tax at income tax rates was introduced and a first lettings charge. In 1976 we had a Community Land Act, with development land tax at rate of 80 per cent. which it was intended to increase to 100 per cent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We will get it right some time.

Mr. Latham: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says that the Labour Party will get it right some time, but it is plain that that is no way to have a housing programme.
I suggest three pillars on which land policy should be based to my right hon. Friend and to the Labour Party. I believe the Labour Party is reconsidering its policy on this subject.
First, there should be a high but not a penal rate of tax on betterment. I think the correct rate should be 60 per cent. I do not agree with the House Builders Federation that that figure should be reduced. I believe that 60 per cent. is the correct rate because it is high but not penal. Secondly, the basic assumption on land is that it should come forward in accordance with market forces—that is, that the builder should identify the land, buy the land, seek planning permission and develop. Thirdly, there should be a role for the local authority, joining the developer in helping to assemble the land. That should be done preferably by voluntary means, but if necessary by compulsory acquisition. That power is now included in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Those three pillars represent a reasonable balance between the rights and needs of the community to ensure that some of the betterment goes to it, that the development is properly carried out, and the need for the land to come forward in accordance with market forces. My suggestions will enable us to get rid of this land hassle which has been befogging politics for the last 150 years.

Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) made an interesting point when he talked about the rotation of policies and the need for a national land policy. He is right when he says, as other Members have said, that there is a need to end the way in which housing has been used as a football, tossing it from side to side depending on who has to take the decision.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) spoke about a shift in Government policy away from new house building towards improvement grants. I support the pensioning off of the bulldozer, the reduction of demolition and the increase in improvement

grants. I am a great believer in and supporter of renovation and renewal. But in an article in The Guardian by John Carvel on Saturday is was pointed out:
The question is whether the amounts of money are so low that too little will be done".
All those to whom I have spoken who are concerned with housing matters, and the Secretary of State, admit that because of the moratorium that he has imposed, where an authority has overspent, no one can get an improvement grant. In my own city of Liverpool we have enormous housing problems, and there is a great need to improve property. In the places were improvement grants are needed they are not being made available. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West also spoke about the shorthold experiment. During the debates on the Housing Bill many Opposition Members shared the view that there was a desperate need to tackle the problem of housing.
I am not one of those who support the immediate repeal of the shorthold provisions. But the Government were unwise not to listen to Opposition Members and to Members of their own party when the suggestion was made that shorthold should have been tried on an experimental basis in some areas of the country. In that way we could have ensured that the worries that many of us have about the possible misuse of the procedures and the possibility of Rachmanism could have been overcome the threat which bedevils the whole of question of shorthold and threatens the possibility of using shorthold to put empty properties back into use.

Mr. Martin Stevens: In commenting on the Government's attitude to shorthold and the attitude of the Opposition to the proposals, does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) reject, as Conservative Members do with some indignation, the statement from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) that if a Labour Government came to power they would enfranchise the shortholders? To many of us that is an unscrupulous method of keeping empty houses empty.

Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). I do not like what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said and I do not support that view. It is interesting that in the House and in politics generally we hear threats from one side or the other—the "Annie-get-your-gun" style of politics—"Anything you can do, we can do better" and "Once you have done it, we will do our best to undo it". One side is nationalising and the other denationalising or renationalising. One lot sells off the council houses and the others say that they will buy them back again. That is what bedevils politics in this country. It has been interesting to hear whose record has been worse.
I took the opportunity to look up some of the Secretary of State's speeches, which I cannot say made scintillating reading. I went through them and I shall use quotations from his speeches in my contribution in order to point out the folly of this rotation of policy without looking at the fundamental problems. During the two years for which the Secretary of State has held that office he has done his best to alienate local government representatives and employees and his traditional supporters in the building industry. His policies of stop-start building have far more to do with panic than with planning. His moratorium had been condemned as a haphazard and naive attempt to achieve what his speeches and statements have failed to


do. Its effects have been disastrous, not only for those employed in the industry but for those whose families have to go on living in wretched conditions.
The right hon. Gentleman will be remembered as the man who mutilated local government, who allowed the building programme to collapse, and who accelerated the decline of run-down, unimproved homes that were desperately in need of improvement. There can rarely have been a Secretary of State for the Environment who has been more disliked than the present incumbent. He has chopped and changed policies to suit his political fortunes. It is said of him that he tells his civil servants "These are my principles; if you do not like them I will change them".
In the 1979 manifesto in the section dealing with housing, to which the right hon. Gentleman presumably made a contribution, it stated:
The prospect of a very high mortgage rate deters some people from buying their homes. Mortgage rates have risen steeply because of the Government's financial mismanagement.
Quite so. The Government should tell that to home buyers now who are paying almost twice as much as they were during the period of the Liberal agreement with the Labour Government. My party was trying to co-operate with that Government and stopped the nationalisation of the building industry by exerting a moderating influence. It was trying to bring an end to the stop-go policies that have dominated events in this House.
Far more significant are the comments of the Secretary of State on 5 March 1979. He said:
The conclusion of five years of this Labour Government has produced the worst new building record, the lowest number of private rented homes, a collapsed level of improvement grants, record-breaking interest rates, soaring land prices and rocketing house prices … 1978 has been a disastrous year for housing. Wherever there has been a slight glimmer of improvement in any field it has not been as a consequence of Government policy but despite it.
If the Labour Government manage to achieve that in five years, the right hon. Gentleman will be remembered for having taken only two years to achieve the same results. He complained that
Mortgage interest rates are now at 11¾ per cent., a higher level than under any previous Government." 
He scolded the then Government, saying that
their overall management of the economy has involved both decisions and measures that have worsened the housing situation.
He chided the then Government, saying
they have done many things to aggravate the situation in addition to their general preoccupation with the levels of public expenditure and the consequential effects of inflation."— [Official Report, 5 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 912–4.]
That came from a Secretary of State who has allowed his Department to be sacrificed on the altar of monetarism. It is no wonder that people are cynical about politicians whose words have become so devalued and meaningless, and who say one thing in Opposition and another in Government.

Mr. Latham: Are these remarks an example of the way in which the Liberal Party gets away from "Annie-get-your-gun" politics?

Mr, Alton: I was replying to the hon. Member for Fulham, saying that I supported his view on shortholds. I have tried to look at the subjects on their merits. I agree with the hon. Member for Melton about the need for a land policy. Sometimes, however, Conservative Members should be more critical of the record of their Government. I represent an area in which about half the homes—more

than in any other constituency in England—were shown in the last census to have no inside toilets or bathrooms. Many of those homes do not have hot running water. Many of them are about to collapse on the occupants. Surely those people are entitled to better than they are being given by the Government.
I return to the house building figures and to the achievements of the Government. They lead me to ask Conservative Members to show more humility than they have shown so far. The latest figures show that Britain started fewer houses in 1980 than in any year since 1924. Housing has borne three quarters of the Government's savage expenditure cuts. In my area on Merseyside, 25 per cent. of the people who are out of work are building workers. The percentage decline in housing starts on Merseyside this year is 45 per cent.—higher than in any area outside Greater London. Even so, Merseyside has more people on the dole than anywhere else in the country—more than the whole of Ulster or Wales.
I try to explain to the people who come to my weekly advice centre and tell me about their unimproved houses what the Government are trying to do and what their policies are all about. I sometimes wish, however, that the Secretary of State would spend some time in a two-up, two-down house with an outside toilet, without hot water, and with a leaking roof. That is a far cry from a mansion in Oxfordshire, or from the offices of Marsham Street.
The right hon. Gentleman has acquired a knack of offending local authorities by his arrogant and highhanded treatment of their affairs. Only yesterday the AMA had cause to write to me again, protesting at the way in which the Secretary of State had dealt with local government housing. Earlier this week the ACC and the AMA had to complain at the Government's crazy decision to water down the control of pollution regulations. Last year they complained at the way in which the Housing Bill and the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill were being introduced. A few weeks ago they were further embittered by the deplorable way in which the rate support grant settlement was announced.
What a sorry saga of blundering and bungling. The Secretary of State described himself as feeling like Wellington before the Battle of Waterloo. Watching his deteriorating relations with local government we might be forgiven for comparing him and the Minister for Housing and Construction with Lucan and Cardigan before the charge of the Light Brigade into the Valley of Death. It seems that they are totally oblivious to reality, and care not about the consequences of their actions.
The Secretary of State should listen to the wise words of the AMA, which warn that with the potential shortfall on new building of over 400,000 dwellings by 1986, an accelerated rate of deterioration of our older housing stock, a housing situation is being built up that will require many years of effort and expenditure to put right. The Secretary of State should listen to the building industry. In November 1980, 279,000 people in that industry were out of work—a 30 per cent. increase on the May 1980 figure. Vacancies have fallen by 81 percent. in 15 months, from 27,000 in August 1979 to 5,000 in November 1980.
The Secretary of State should also remember his words when he said, in June 1977:
does not the present level of unemployment in the construction industry, which is the worst since 1931, make a mockery of the


Government's claim in their last General Election manifesto that they would create a permanent and stable work force?"— [Official Report, 29 June 1979; Vol. 934, c. 408.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the measure to which he has referred will achieve a lower level of unemployment in the construction industry? Does not every Member of Parliament have the right to ask the right hon. Gentleman the same question today? How can the right hon. Gentleman merely dismiss the warnings of the AMA that the rate of deterioration of our older housing stock is continuing at an alarming rate? Does he not see that the private sector is being just as badly damaged as the public sector? Is he aware that 84,000 new homes were started in the private sector and 44,000 in the public sector? Apart from the war years, that is the lowest figure for the public sector since 1920 and for the private sector since 1953. The National Council of Building Material Producers said this week:
The consequences of a low house building and renovation work will be an increasing number of homes in poor condition and an increase in multi-occupation, overcrowding and sharing. There may still be a rise in the number of vacant properties—simply because they are unfit or in places where people do not wish to live.
The Minister for Housing and Construction is right to hang his head in shame.
I turn to the effects on my constituents of such a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy. As queues lengthen in our housing offices, so tempers shorten. Officials who are unable to help people in great need are being placed under mounting pressure. I know of examples of such utter exasperation that applicants and tenants have erupted in anger. Every day I see examples of people's needs being ignored. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) said that 7,000 people were on his local waiting list but that most of them were already living in council houses and simply wanted to transfer to another house or area. That is all that he thought of them—people who wanted a transfer.
I must tell the hon. Member about a deaf and dumb lady who came to see me a couple of weeks ago. She lives in a three-bedroomed house, but needs to move to a one-bedroomed flat near to her relatives, so that she will no longer be isolated. But, as a result of the Government's cuts in housing expenditure, no sheltered accommodation is available. No one-bedroomed houses are available. People such as that lady are not being rehoused. She is one of the hon. Gentleman's statistics on the housing waiting list. She is not irrelevant. The couple who wrote to me recently are similarly not irrelevant. They have a special medical priority and have been awaiting rehousing for about nine months. The wife wrote to me a couple of weeks ago to say that her husband had died and that the medical priority was no longer required. How many more people are there in similar positions?
I cannot believe that the Secretary of State fully understands the misery that his ill-judged and misconceived policies are causing. If he does understand that, I cannot forgive him for the damage that his policies are causing. I shall support the motion in the Lobbies tonight.

Sir Albert Costain: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said that there would be a party political broadcast on behalf of the

Labour Party at 9 o'clock this evening and that we should all watch it. We have just heard a party political broadcast on behalf of the Liberal Party. It was a typical party political broadcast, because it slammed everybody, made false accusations against individuals and did not offer a single idea of how to obtain more housing.
I informed the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that I intended to refer to him in my speech. He may yet return to the Chamber. I listened to his speech with special interest. He and I have taken part in most of the many housing debates. I congratulate him, because he has learnt that he needs to read the literature of the House Builders Federation and the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, and consequently he now talks a great deal of sense. He declared two interests, but forgot to declare a third. I told him that I intended to criticise him. He forgot his most important interest, namely, that he is living in a block of flats built before the introduction of Rent Acts, and he is enjoying his occupation. I told the House 20 years ago that if the Labour Party would only abandon stupid rent controls, more houses would be built.
Let us get down to the principles. I see that some Opposition Members are sneering. I say with some modesty that I have been in the building industry for longer than has anyone in the House. I was responsible for building up a large organisation. Be that as it may, I now want to get down to fundamentals.
We all agree that there is a housing shortage. We all agree that it is a great tragedy that people are not being properly housed. We all want to see that tragedy overcome. The problem that faces us is how to do that. Which policies are right? Nobody can deny that the only commodity that is in short supply is housing, or that the only commodity that has been controlled for 40 years is housing. Cannot the House draw the proper conclusion from that? Cannot the House appreciate that the only way to overcome the problem is to remove control and rationing, and to abolish the black market, which will result in increased supply?
Rachmanism was a type of black market, because it involved rationing. Rachmanism came about because of a housing shortage, and some people without consciences took advantage of it—in exactly the same way as black marketeers peddled sugar and butter.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked an important point of history. The era of Rachmanism grew up in the wake of the 1957 Rent Act, which removed controls and security of tenure. It badly damaged the inner areas of cities such as London and Liverpool. I refer to the period between 1957 and 1963. Rachmanism was the product of the decontrols provided by the 1957 Act.

Sir Albert Costain: The right hon. Gentleman opened both jaws and put both hands down. He has proved my case conclusively. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) laughs, but I am talking with the benefit of some experience.
The right hon. Gentleman said that Rachmanism started because controls were lifted. He overlooks the fact that the Opposition threatened to bring the controls back immediately. The controls were not lifted, but were temporarily abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman makes ugly faces. Unless we can get away from controls, we shall not obtain the houses that we want and cure unemployment.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Walton is not present. Dolphin Square, where he lives, was built during the biggest depression that the industry has known. It was started in 1933, because my little group had a bunch of very efficient workmen whom we did not want to make unemployed. We decided to put everything that we had into building a block of flats where we could employ them and thus produce accommodation. That is just what we did.
That little team was the foundation on which that little company was built up into about the third biggest of its kind in the world. That is not possible today, because controls are such that no one can speculate, except on office blocks—and they are overdone anyway. If we had free enterprise, if we has no controls on building, a number of firms would be happy to build housing to let.
I own houses in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. I should gladly build more to rent if he would only persuade the Opposition that controls should be abolished. That is what it is all about. Hon. Members can bandy figures about, saying that they built so many dwellings and somebody else built a different number. The fact remains that in the early part of the century 92 per cent. of our houses had private landlords. They were not such a bad lot. They included the Cadbury Trust, the Rowntree Trust and the Peabody Trust, all of which were generations ahead. At that time even the trade unions were prepared to invest money in rented property, something that they should do again. Because of rent control, they are now buying antiques and paintings, when they should be putting their cash resources into providing accommodation for the workers.
My group works in Germany. Immediately after the war the Germans—

Mr. Freeson: In Germany there have been strong property and rent controls for many years, to such a degree that whilst I was Minister deputations came from Germany to discuss their problems with us. The problems still exist.

Sir Albert Costain: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that in Germany employers are encouraged to build houses, and if one builds a new house in Germany it is not subject to control. The first thing that we need in order to resolve the housing problem is for the Opposition simply to say that any new houses built shall not be subject to rent control. What can be wrong about that?
One house in 30 is now empty. The House should be ashamed of that. Houses are empty because people are afraid to let, afraid of not being able to get their property back. The Basingstoke case has done more harm to the provision of rented property than could be done by four or five hours' debate here. People are afraid that they will not be able to get back their own accommodation if they let it.
Many people buy houses for their retirement. They are often very nice places. Some of those people ask me "How can I be sure that if I let my house now I shall be able to get it back in three years' time, when I retire?" I point out that if they make the right arrangements with their solicitors, and if they get the lease right, they will be able to take up occupation. They say "Tell us that again". They say that although, according to the law, that is possible it will take a long time.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to some shameful cases. There are plenty of cases

like that. We could reduce the number of such cases. One house in 30 could become available if only the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Taylor) would get up—as I have asked so often—and say that the Labour Party does not want empty houses. At present, houses stand empty because of the controls.
The Labour Party is frightened to take any action because there are more tenants than landlords and they want the votes. The only time that I agreed with the hon. Member for Edge Hill was when he said that politics should be taken out of housing. Of course both sides of the House should agree to do that. The Opposition believe that the only way to solve the housing problem is to build more and more council houses.
We have seen how local authorities have failed. They built high-rise flats. No private investor would have done that. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) about land. The Government could take some positive action. They have begun on the right lines, and they should continue. I have seen three similar depressions. After a depression it is immediately suggested that people in the construction industry should be employed. People say "Let us give them some work. Let us get the men working." Whenever that has been said, others have said "Good Heavens, we have no plans". When the Treasury turns on the tap the plans are not available. There is a ghastly nine-month gestation period and everything starts prematurely.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take my next suggestion seriously. Cannot my hon. Friend twist the Treasury's arm a little? Cannot he get the Treasury to agree that architects should get together to prepare plans and drawings? Builders and house developers should be told that they can get on even when the tap is off. If they do that, they will make a real contribution.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that most of those sitting in the Chamber have been here all afternoon and are anxious to take part in the debate. I understand that the winding-up speeches will begin at 9.10 pm. There are nine hon. Members who wish to speak. Therefore, brief contributions would be welcome.

Mr. David Stoddart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on his brilliant and devastating attack on Government policy. When the Secretary of State replied, I felt a certain admiration for his cheek. He had the cheek of Old Nick. The right hon. Gentleman tried to turn the attack made on him to his advantage by attacking the Labour Government.
That simply is not on. The Secretary of State criticised the Labour Government for making a cut in housing expenditure which was in fact made by Tory local authorities at his behest. Having said that that programme was too low, he proceeded to cut it in such a swingeing manner as has never been done before. The right hon. Gentleman has a great deal of cheek.
Bearing in mind the Tories' housing policy, there is no way that they can turn away the criticism made of them that they are deliberately causing slump and unemployment. Undoubtedly their housing policy has caused just that, and since that policy has been deliberate, it is they


who have caused the slump in the building industry which, of course, has had effects, very much wider than the building industry itself, on the building supplies industry and on the professions as well, as we heard this morning from the Royal Institute of British Architects.
By the mid-1980s the policies of this Government will cause the greatest housing crisis that we have ever known. That has been said already, but it is worth repeating, and it is important to warn people what is to come. Not only will there be housing shortages. Prices will escalate in the way that they did in the days of the Tory Government led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1972 and 1973. We see prices shooting up, and soon that old word "gazump" will be with us again. Just when increasing house prices and shortages in the private sector are with us, we shall find that the public sector—the only way in which the shortage can be relieved—is building virtually no houses, and, because of this Government's policy of forcing councils to sell houses, local authorities will be left with a greatly reduced housing stock. That is the position that we shall have reached by the middle of this decade.
Local councils such as my own find already that they are getting greater and greater numbers of people applying for houses to rent. In my constituency, the waiting list has more than doubled since the Government came into office, and the waiting time has more than trebled. That is the position which local authorities face, even before the Government's policies have their full effect.
My own constituency is one of the most progressive housing authorities in the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick will vouch for this, as will Ministers, including the Secretary of State, because they have been there and seen the forward-looking policies that Swindon borough council and Thamesdown borough council have implemented. In partnership with private enterprise, they have had a balanced housing programme in being over a long period of time. They have built houses to let. They have planned in advance. They have built for sale. They have carried out improvements. They have done all that a local authority should do. It is a growth area, and one would expect the Government to wish to support to the hilt an area of that kind which has done its job and which is a Government-planned growth area.
Far from doing that, the Government have reduced Swindon's housing investment programme by just about half. In real terms, the programme has been reduced by 26 per cent., and that is mostly in respect of programmes which are already committed, leaving very little for new building.
The strategy in Swindon was to start 634 houses. Only 122 starts will be made in 1981, and they are being made only because they were delayed from 1980 by the moratorium placed on building projects by the Government last November. It is also expected that next year there will be a further reduction of 15 per cent. in the housing investment programme.
It means that they will make no housing starts for general needs until 1983, at the earliest.
The area has great housing problems, and the housing authority has done its job well over a long period. Next year in Swindon there will be no housing advances for owner-occupation, which surely the Government want to encourage. The Government have allocated only

£150,000, although the council applied for £2·5 million. That sum will allow for only a modest number of second mortgages to provide improvements to houses already mortgaged to the council. So much for the Government's claim that improvements will take priority. The Thamesdown borough council hardly has enough money to lend to those who want to improve their property.
My constituents are badly hit, as are all council tenants, by the Government's decision, in reducing the housing subsidy, to impose swingeing rent increases upon them. My council tenants will have to bear average increases of about £4.40 per week. It is little use the Secretary of State saying that my council tenants pay only £8 to £ 11 a week in rent. People in Swindon will be paying between £20 and £22 a week in rent, once the increases are imposed. Furthermore, many of my constituents will have only a 6 per cent. rise in incomes, whereas they will have a 25 per cent. rise in rents. In fact, many will have no increase in wages or salaries. The Government's housing policy is baleful in every respect. It will give me the greatest pleasure to support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I shall direct my remarks entirely to the housing policy of the Welsh Office. I start with the cuts being made in housing expenditure in Wales from £303 million in 1974–75 to £110 million in 1983–84. The housing investment programmes details of which have just been made available indicate that during the period up to 1984, 64,000 new houses are necessary to meet the needs submitted in the bids by the housing authorities. That means a new bill of £21,500 per year.
The bids presented for the current year are for over £95 million, but the allocations are down to £79 million. Whatever we may think of waiting lists as an indicator, a substantial increase of 19 per cent. in waiting lists during 1979–80 must indicate the way in which cuts are causing substantial housing stress.
The results of that cut are clear from the local authority housing starts in Wales. The starts in the local authority sector in 1980 were 2,340, and completions were 3,493. Similarly, private sector starts were down to 5,027 and completions down to 5,727. Those are the lowest figures for the local authority sector since the winter of 1936, and the lowest figures since 1958 in the private sector.
I wonder whether the Welsh Office Minister has spoken to the housing officers of his own authority of Aberconwy, who made the statement in a survey by Shelter:
all newbuild postponed, including one elderly persons' sheltered development of 38 flats, five adapted for handicapped tenants.
The same applies to the bids of other authorities in Wales. I have here a copy of the bid of the Carmarthen district council, which for 1980–81 states simply "No new build starts". I highlight particularly the position in the Cynon Valley, an area of major housing stress, where the number of required local authority completions is 1,989 and the number of local authority planned completions is as low as 70. The Merioneth district, which is not a valley or urban authority but a rural authority, is facing similar substantial problems of increased waiting lists.
The other arm of the Government's housing policy—the Housing Corporation in Wales—has had its real budget reduced. The allocaton to the Housing


Corporation has declined by 25 per cent., which will result in the allocation to individual housing authorities being reduced.
I have only one question for the Minister. The Department of the Environment is about to launch a housing condition survey for England. Will the Welsh Office launch a similar survey? The existing figures are appalling. Taking into account housing stock and population, the situation is worse in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Has that fact deterred the Welsh Office from launching a survey?

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I shall try to be brief, as other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
I make no attempt to minimise the problems that we face. However, just after the war we had a surplus of 700,000 households over dwellings; by 1977, the surplus was of 400,000 dwellings over households. In 1951, 7 million homes were regarded as unfit to live in and as lacking basic amenities; by 1977, the figure had reduced to 250,000. In 1951, 600,000 homes were overcrowded; by 1977, the figure was 73,000. We have one of the highest proportions of dwellings equipped with basic amenities in the whole of Western Europe. In England and Wales about 55 per cent. of our people live in their own homes. For young couples in their early thirties, it is 70 per cent.
The House does not have a great deal to be proud of when it comes to housing, but it is worth giving the background. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is well known for his use of hyperbole, but the tone of his attack on the Government was inappropriate. It was symbolic of the conflictive politics that we see from Labour Members. I was particularly upset to see the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) smirking and to hear him shouting to my right hon. Friend "You don't care." That is a shocking accusation for any hon. Member to make. It is small wonder that, when we conduct debates on housing, social policy, and so on, in such a manner, the public ask themselves what is going on.
The Government are operating against the background of world-wide recession and restraint.

Mrs. Renée Short: It is a home-produced recession.

Mr. Garel-Jones: As the hon. Lady knows, perhaps the most important factor in bringing about a revival in world trade is the recirculation of the Arab petrodollars, which this year will take $150 billion out of circulation. That is vastly more important than any small thing that we may do here. The hon. Lady knows that that is true. I do not wish to pursue the point because I know that some of her hon. Friends wish to make a contribution to the debate.
The Government have taken a view about the economy. We accept that Opposition Members disagree with that view. However, they know that, broadly speaking, that view was sanctioned by the electorate in the general election of 1979. I suggest that they would do themselves more credit as a party and that they would do the House more credit if they were a little more constructive in their approach to the legitimate criticisms which they may have about the Government.
Given the restraint in expenditure and given the recession that they are facing, the Government have tried

to do two important things. First, they have introduced the right to buy for council tenants. In my constituency, hundreds of potential buyers have been subject to delay, anxiety and even anguish on this account, because of what I regard as a dogmatic objection to that right by the Labour-controlled council. The council is entitled to fight it up to the last minute, but to go on spinning it out when the battle is over simply inflicts a party political argument on innocent members of the public who are not following party politics day by day. They are kept waiting until they can buy their council houses.
The second proposal introduced by my hon. Friend was the shorthold tenure scheme. I am sorry to say that we have had a dogmatic objection to that. The Opposition have done everything possible to torpedo the scheme. The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) was smirking at my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain), who probably has more experience of the building industry than any other hon. Member. He said that one in 30 houses is empty. The Opposition do not seem willing to allow a scheme to get off the ground which might put some of those properties back into circulation.
I could make many other points, but I shall not pursue them because I know that many Opposition Members wish to speak.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: The Opposition have called for this debate because of the criminal negligence and indifference of the Government to the housing problems that face ordinary people, certainly those who live in the East End of London and in the sort of constituency that I represent.
The right to a home of one's own, like the right to work or the right to health, is a fundamental human right. There are two philosophies on this matter. One is described by the Hackney borough council, which says:
Good housing is a basic right of all people and it is our aim as a Socialist party to fulfil this right. The Labour Party will identify priority needs and meet them—be they the basic need for roofs over heads or a need for drastic improvement in present housing conditions. All citizens—in council and private property—can look to a Labour Council to take a direct interest in their housing conditions and to involve the people in decision making by increased participation.
That is precisely what we do in Hackney.
On the other hand, there is this philosophy:
I hope you will not think me too blunt if I say that it may well be that your council accommodation is unsatisfactory, but concerning the fact that you have been unable to buy your own accommodation, you are lucky enough to be given something which the rest of us are paying for out of our taxes.
That is the philosophy of the Government.
Tory Members involved in housing seem to think that it should be an area for speculation and private profit. It should be no such thing. The need for housing is far too great. The Government have made, and intent to make, cuts from 1979 to 1982 of £600 million, £1,500 million, £2,500 million, £3,200 million, and so on. They are all cuts in the previous Government's plans.
Production levels are now equal to those of the 1930s. I remember the conditions of the 1930s—seven in a bed. Hon. Members can smile because they probably have never had that experience. People come to see me to complain that they have to live seven in one room. I have had to sleep seven in a bed and I know what it is like to


live under such conditions. Yet the Government can give £1 million to a young single man buying his second home, while others have no home at all.
The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Housing and Construction to produce a black list. Hackney is included on the list because, it is said, it has nearly 300,000 empty houses. I took that matter up with Hackney council. The Minister knows its reply, because I have forwarded it to his Department. The council said:
Since the Government took office, they have adopted a variety of measures to stop properties being improved or rehabilitated to save public sector money. They have scrutinised individual projects closely, and delayed the preparation of agreed schemes, while at the same time promising more freedom to local authorities to spend money as they wish. This delayed many projects in Hackney. Then they imposed a moratorium probably to last six months, which prevented even agreed schemes from proceeding, and then they made a radically reduced allocation of HIP money—in Hackney reduced from 1980–81 by 42 per cent. leaving authorities to decide which schemes to proceed with, and which schemes to stop for 1981–82. Thus everything the Government has done has encouraged the growth in the number of empty properties.
That was the council's reply to the Minister about the voids.
The reply went on to specify some of the properties:
Powell House, which the Council wants to demolish amounts to 200 units. The DoE delayed evaluation of the proposals, by asking for a cost-benefit analysis, the first of its kind only to ignore its results. We are now trying to get an agreed scheme, but it is doubtful with the reduced HIP whether the Council could go ahead for several years.
Morley House is awaiting approval of tender and is held up by the moratorium.
Banister II has been delayed by the moratorium and being considered by the DoE.
Lordship II has been delayed by the moratorium and being considered by the DoE.
At the DoE also are 105 ordinary houses requiring improvement also delayed by the moratorium.
That is a total of 690 units delayed by Government action. That is why there are voids in places such as Hackney.
The national dwelling and housing survey shows Hackney to have among the highest proportions of lone parents, non-whites overcrowding, unemployed persons and unsatisfactory accommodation. People are dissatisfied with the area. London is divided into two cities, just as this country is divided into two nations—the Hackneys, Brents and Ealings on the one hand, and the Bexleys, Harrows and Kingstons on the other. The Government give them completely different treatment when it comes to housing.
Over 5,000 single persons have applied for dwellings in Hackney. The Minister says that there is to be major research into the accommodation problems of disadvan-taged single persons. When is that to take place? There are 2 million families in homes in serious disrepair or without amenities. There are over 1 million on housing waiting lists, and those lists are growing. There are 200,000 children living in cramped conditions in tower blocks. There are 50,000 homeless every year and 100,000 without any shelter whatever, sleeping rough.
In London alone, another 100,000 have joined the 200,000 households already on the waiting lists. There are nearly 200,000 living in overcrowded conditions in the London area. There are about 15,000 single-parent families forced to live with relatives, with no home of their own. There are over 2,000 people sleeping rough in London, while over 100,000 homes remain empty in the area, awaiting sale or repair.
What stands in the way of 1 million families having a home of their own? There are 300,000 construction workers unemployed. There are millions of bricks lying idle in the brickyards. There are thousands of tons of cement awaiting use. Land is available on which to build. Only the Government stand in the way, and until they are removed the housing problem will never be solved in Britain.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The housing issue that concerns my constituents most—half way between the Bromleys and the Hackneys—is the decision, apparently, by NALGO not to process applications for the sale of council homes. It would appear that this decision has been taken without much consultation with the broad mass of membership. I ask any of my constituents in NALGO to let me know what decision was taken by them, whether they were consulted, and whether there was political interference in a non-political union.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Nothing that has been said in this House today by the Secretary of State will have done anything to convince anyone inside the House, let alone anyone outside it, that either he or his colleagues in the Department have any real understanding either of the effects of the policies that they are pursuing or of the real housing needs of the people of this country.
We have heard yet again of the blanket approach of the Secretary of State, who simply believes in measuring need in terms of public expenditure. If it costs money it cannot be needed; if it does not cost money, it must be essential and therefore it can go ahead. Having looked back over the speeches of the Secreatry of State, over some of his recent statements and over some of his frequently corrected answers, I can find very little evidence in any of them that identifies the Sectetary of State as the Minister who is responsible for looking after the housing needs of this country. Nothing that we have heard today does anything to change that impression.
Indeed, I wonder why the Govenment have not gone the whole way and decided to save a few ministerial salaries into the bargain by absorbing the housing division of the Department of the Environment into the Treasury, because that is where the Government believe it belongs.
When the Government first came to office they found time for an early debate on housing when the House debated the Queen's Speech. That was perhaps a hopeful sign, some people might have naively thought, indicating tha the Government would treat housing seriously. At that time the Secretary of State was still quite keen on his pastime of saying that Labour's housing record was not good enough. He said that he would reverse it and then improve on it. We have certainly seen the reversal, but when are we to see the improvement?
I hope that the Minister for Housing and Construction will tell us when he expects to see an improvement in either the quantity or the quality of the genetal housing stock of this country. One of the reasons for the debate is that last year there were 152,000 housing starts, the lowest figure since 1925. In about 18 months' time when current starts become completions, completions will be running at half the rate that was established during the worst year of the Labour Government, unless by that time the Secretary


of State, with his individual approach to arithmetic, devises a system whereby there can be more completions that starts.

Mr. Ted Graham: He can do it.

Mrs. Taylor: We shall see. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the Labour Government's record. The Secretary of State took him up on some details. I hope that the Minister of State will continue some of the comparisons. I hope that he will acknowledge what I am sure is true, namely, that he would like to be able to say that any one year of his Administration will provide either public or total housing starts at a level that matches the average level achieved by the Labour Government. Even our worst year for public sector starts was twice as good as the figure that the Secretary of State has produced for his full year.
One of the reasons for the difference in performance is that our starting point in housing policy was completely different from that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. Our starting point was the assessment of need. We published figures so that everybody could understand to what extent our aims were being fulfilled. The Government's starting point is totally different. They make cuts in public expenditure as a matter of principle and refuse point blank to make any assessment of housing priorities and housing needs.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have shown repeatedly the ridiculous nature of the position in which the right hon. Gentleman has placed himself. However, the best evidence of what he is doing comes from the time when he gave evidence to the Select Committee, when one of his colleagues asked him whether he was seriously telling the Committee that he would reduce expenditure on housing by 50 per cent. and that he had given no serious thought to the consequences that were likely to follow that reduction. That question sums up exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He is pursuing policies without making any basic assessment of the impact on housing.
I can understand why the Secretary of State may not want to establish targets or to make forecasts. However, his refusal to respond to the great weight of information on housing and the needs that will be coming up in future disqualify him from carrying out the job that the Government have given him. It is his disregard of housing need—the needs of young people, of the elderly and of families—that has put us into the present position.
We have had 20 months of Conservative Government who are committed, so we are told, to freedom of choice. We can choose to pay more for our mortgages if we are house buyers. We can choose to pay more in rent if we are council tenants. Let us consider some categories of household and the way in which the Government have affected them. The Conservative Party often assumes that owner-occupiers form the basis of its support. What has happened to them under this Government? They have been given the choice of paying record interest rates. When the Government came to power the mortgage rate was 11¾ per cent. It is now 14 per cent., but for much of the Government's term in office it was 15 per cent. Thanks to the Government, mortgage holders have had to pay an extra £1½ billion. If that is how the Government look after people they call their supporters, it is perhaps not surprising that other groups have come out even worse.
Let us consider council house tenants. During the last election campaign, we heard a lot about the new deal that

the new Tory Government would give to council house tenants. What has that meant? As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, council rents rose by 28 per cent. last year. This year, the Secretary of State himself has determined that average increases in rents will be £3·25, which is a further 33 per cent.—an increase so great that some people are wondering whether the Government are trying to push people into buying their council houses because rent levels are now so bad.
That is not the end of the story. The rent increases so far are not the final word. To give an idea of what will happen to rents in the future, I shall mention what is now happening in Basingstoke. The housing revenue account there is in balance, but because rents in the town are below the regional average which the Department of the Environment has devised, Basingstoke is to lose rate support grant. It will therefore have to raise its rents 66 per cent. this year. The housing revenue account will therefore be forced into surplus because of the way in which regional rents will work and will subsidise the town's general rate fund because the Secretary of State is withdrawing rate support grant. That is happening simply because the Minister's priority is not assessing what rents should be or even allowing local authorities to do so. His policy is to put rents up as high and as quickly as possible, so there is not much prospect for improvement for those people.
Is there perhaps more hope for people on the waiting lists? Apart from disputing the existence of such people, the Secretary of State has succeeded in finding one of the few growth areas of Tory policy. The Minister, and indeed most Conservative Members, do not seem to like to talk about waiting lists. But Shelter's recent survey and the figures of the local authorities themselves show that the number of people on waiting lists has increased to 1·2 million, and Shelter predicts that the figure will be 2 million by 1984. The figures for London show that waiting lists have passed their previous peak of 1974. That is happening all over the country.
So long as the Government continue with their present policies, waiting lists will remain at peak levels and the people on them will have little prospect of an early allocation, whatever their medical priority or other problems.
Even for a disabled person awaiting rehousing, with every possible degree of priority, the chances are not good. Pressure on local authorities from the Government means that even such high priority cases cannot be dealt with because the money simply is not there for necessary adaptations. At the last parliamentary Question Time to the Department of the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) asked the Undersecretary of State what he intended to do for handicapped people during the International Year of Disabled People. Did he intend to make more resources available for conversions? The Under-Secretary of State expressed great sympathy and tremendous concern. He then revealed that he would not actually be able to help to build or to convert property for disabled persons, but that his Department would be able to show a film so that they could see exactly what they were missing. I am sure that that kind of help will be greatly appreciated by all those who are being hit by the Government's cuts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): That is a travesty of what I said.

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister says that it is a travesty, but I shall gladly give way if he will say that he will provide resources.

Mr. Finsberg: What I said was that the film would enable people to see what could be done—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—which is precisely what the Labour Party totally failed to do during the years that it was in office.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the disabled of this country will be pleased to know that they will be allowed to see what they are missing. They and the whole House would have supported the hon. Gentleman if only he had said that he would do something concrete about this.
Even if one is in the private rented sector, the prospects are just as grim. Those people are facing higher rents, less security and very little chance of getting into better accommodation.
The Government are very fond of talking about the shorthold provisions. Indeed, today the Secretary of State again blamed, or perhaps praised, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick for provoking a lack of interest in the shorthold scheme. When Conservative Members talk about the private rented sector and the empty units that are available, they always seem to fail to mention the 1977 vacant property survey which showed that the vast majority of private empty property was not empty because of the Rent Acts. Indeed, an assessment was made of the number of units that were empty because of the Rent Acts, and it revealed that the figure might be as low as 8,000. The vast majority of those properties were empty simply because they were in extremely poor condition.
Even if the Secretary of State is right and all that evidence is wrong, even if he is right and my right hon. Friend has such tremendous power as to wreck the Government's proposals on shorthold provision, Labour Members are proud to work alongside him, especially if the Secretary of State criticises him for hawking himself around the country and promising security of tenure. If that is what my right hon. Friend is doing, he has the support of every Labour Member and the support of the vast majority of people in the private rented sector.
Given that the Government have not done much for all those groups; given that perhaps owner-occupiers are not the best of friends of the Tory Party after all; given that council tenants can be forgotten now that their votes are in; given that those on the waiting lists should stand on their own two feet; and given that the handicapped should, as the Prime Minister said, help themselves first, what has the Tory Party done for its undoubted friends in the building and construction industry—those who devoted so much of their scarce investment resources to invest in a Tory election victory? How have they been rewarded? We saw a little of their investment earlier in the shape of the carrier bags and balloons which they bought. If those firms ran their businesses expecting the same rate of return on investment that they got from investing in a Tory victory, they would all have been bankrupt a long time ago. To put it politely, those firms are not exactly delighted with the Secretary of State's performance.
Total investment in housing is planned to be cut in half by 1984, which means that the prospects are bleak even

for those firms which have managed to survive 20 months of Tory Government. It is not just the public sector that has been hit, but the whole of the house building industry. All the warnings and dire statements which came from CABIN and its friends just before the election, look very strange now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, it seems strange to us to have building companies coming to us to cry on our shoulders after they have put so much money into Tory Party funds.

Mr. Den Dover: Will the hon. Lady accept from me—I have declared my interest as parliamentary consultant for George Wimpey—that the builders of this country are a prime example of private enterprise at work? They realise that the market place is of paramount importance. Private house builders will build the houses that the country requires. They realise that the Secretary of State and this Government have inherited a bad economic situation and that the country cannot afford the large housing subsidies which we have seen in the past.

Mrs. Taylor: The simple truth is that building companies, like everyone else, are not at work under this Government, and that is what they as well as we, are complaining about. Indeed, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers is now extremely concerned about what will happen over the next year. The Secretary of State said earlier that he could detect some optimism in possible private sector starts. That optimism is not shared by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, which said about 10 days ago that
the vast majority of firms are now reporting further reductions in inquiries and anticipating severe downturns this year.
As I have said, building companies are worried about what has happened already, and they are even more concerned about what will happen in the future.
The Government have not helped their friends in the construction industry, and those friends are right to complain that they have been badly treated by the Government. But there is just one sector of the construction industry which is doing well under this Government. Having done a good deal of research to find out what is happening to building firms throughout the country, I find that the only sector of the industry which is doing well at the moment is that which deals with the construction of fall-out shelters. So much for confidence in this Government.
The Government are not particularly concerned about building workers, and the Secretary of State said very little about them. But even building employers are concerned that it is costing so much to keep people out of work when, with some sensible public investment, real housing starts could be higher and the housing situation could be considerably eased.
The Secretary of State had a chance today to make some defence of his policies, but we heard little of that. In fact, it was somewhat difficult to follow what he said, as he switched from talking about NUPE to talking about Shirley Williams—he seemed to be willing to talk about anything but housing—but what I think he was trying to tell us was that everything will be all right in the end. The trouble is that we do not know what "all right" means for him.
The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether he thinks that the figure of 152,000 starts is adequate, He has not said that the figure should be higher. He has not said


that he regrets the current low level of building starts. All that he said was that improvements last year were much higher than many people might have thought. But the reason why improvements were so much higher last year than some of us might have thought was that those improvements were completions and, by and large, they were completions which were started under HIP allocations from the Labour Government. By the time we see the completions which have been started under this Government, the improvement figures will be revealed as just as disastrous, I fear, as the house building figures which we have already seen.
The Secretary of State gave us nothing to justify his amendment. In fact, the Conservative Party is finding it difficult to defend its housing policies. I have here a document isued by the Conservative research department. It is called a "Summary of Housing Measures since May 1979". As one would imagine, it is not a very comprehensive document. The interesting point about the document is that nowhere does it mention any assessment of housing need or any assessment of the investment necessary to bring housing standards in this country to the proper level.
The booklet simply concludes by saying that many detailed booklets and films have been produced by the Department. Judging from the list of them, the Department is more successful at producing them than it is at producing houses. It is, therefore, strange that the Secretary of State should recently attack the information services of his Department. According to The Guardian, the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about this matter and has written a note to the Cabinet complaining that the existing officials do not meet his publicity needs. It seems that he believes that the Government should bring in some new blood from Fleet Street. One can imagine the advertisements used to recruit such people—"Wanted. Someone to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."
No matter how much the Secretary of State may yearn for the days of Saatchi and Saatchi, however many newsmen he may try to get, however brash he may be, however much he may shout, and no matter how much window dressing he may use, he cannot hide the fact that the Government have the worst housing record since 1925, and that is why we shall press the matter to a Division tonight.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I cannot say that I agreed with every word that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) uttered, but I certainly wish to congratulate her on her first appearance at the Opposition Dispatch Box in a housing debate.
The Opposition chose to entitle this debate
The Government's attack on housing".
I shall not dwell at any great length on the record of the previous Administration, but the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was trying to rewrite history when he began his speech this afternoon. Much as the Labour Party may want it otherwise, the so-called attack on housing was begun not by this Government, but by the Labour Government—in 1976 under the right hon. Members for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). They sustained the so-called attack with unswerving consistency for four

successive years. If the Opposition want the debate to be about the attack on housing, it is time that they acknowledged their consistent contribution to that attack.
That is not merely the view of the Conservative Benches. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), who is also Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. Mr. Alan Murie, one of the specialist advisers to that Committee, is in no doubt about the origins of the present housing position. Recently he wrote:
Whatever view is taken of the extent of progress and the nature of remaining problems, the previous Government went a long way to lower the rate of success.
Mr. Murie is correct in that view.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick and the hon. Lady sought not merely to draw a veil over what had happened before 1979 but to ignore one of the most important changes in the public sector—the change from new building to improvement—

Mr. Freeson: Not again.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman cannot ignore this. I shall tell him what he was doing when he had my job in the Labour Government. Local authorities—Conservative and Labour—have been deliberately and consciously switching their expenditure from new building to improvement over the past few years. While new building has been decreasing, improvement has been increasing. Local authorities' expenditure on improvement has been increasing in real terms year by year. The figures, at 1980 survey prices, show that in 1976 expenditure on improvements was £482 million, in 1977 it rose to £509 million, in 1978 it rose again to £563 million, in 1979 it rose to £718 million and for 1980 our estimate is that it will once again be about £700 million.

Mr. Freeson: Do those figures include work carried out by housing associations? If so, and bearing in mind the pipeline effect of expenditure and activity in that area in recent years, will the Minister say whether he expects the high level now reached to continue in real terms during 1981, 1982 and 1983? Will he put the facts on the record?

Mr. Stanley: I shall have to check the exact position, but I understand that the figures refer solely to local authorities' improvement expenditure on their dwellings and do not include housing association expenditure funded by the Housing Corporation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that in the first full year of this Government there has been more expenditure on improvement than during any year when he was Minister. In relation to future levels, we shall have to consider what local authorities do with their single block capital allocation and their use of receipts. I shall come to that later.
I wish to emphasise the considerable progress in improvements to dwellings. Figures are available up to 30 September 1980. I am glad to say that in the 12-month period to that date the number of improvements to private houses was the highest since 1975. The number of improvements to council houses was the highest since 1973, and the number of improvements to housing association dwellings was the second highest ever. The hon. Member for Bolton, West referred to the disabled. I am glad to tell her that the number of improvements to dwellings for the disabled carried out in both the public


and private sectors was higher in the first nine months of 1980 than in any complete 12-month period previously reported.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the improvements completed to September last year were, by and large, within the HIP allocations approved by the Labour Government?

Mr. Stanley: They cover a wide range of improvements. If the hon. Lady thinks that such levels of improvement in the private sector and elsewhere were a result of Labour allocations, I have to tell her that it would have to be a very inefficient Labour-controlled authority to take 18 months to bring those improvements to a conclusion.
Throughout the debate we have considered the question of expenditure. A great deal of attention has been paid to the levels of public expenditure, but no attention has been focused on the significant ways in which the Government have managed to offset some of the reductions in public expenditure by the additional availability of private finance.
I want to draw the attention of the House to two important developments that have taken place during the past week. Last Wednesday I announced that the Building Societies Association had endorsed clauses for shared ownership leases under which building society mortgages can now be made available for the first time to those buying houses and flats under the various types of shared ownership schemes being carried out by local authorities, new towns and housing associations.
That is an important development, because it will open the way for many millions of pounds of building society finance to be made available to shared ownership schemes, which previously could be financed only by local authority mortgages, which counted as public expenditure. That change will probably enable between three and four times as many shared ownership houses or flats to be constructed for a given amount of public expenditure than would previously have been the case.
I am glad to be able to announce a second and equally significant development. I think that it will meet some of the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). As I indicated in an answer today to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), agreement has now been reached with representatives of the Building Societies Association on a new scheme under the 1980 Housing Act, under which building societies will for the first time be able to advance mortgages on the strength of a guarantee from a local authority or from the Housing Corporation. This will enable building societies to provide mortgages on homes in need of improvement which previously could be mortgaged only to a local authority, and therefore would have fallen on the authority's HIP expenditure. These guarantees will be able to be used on all schemes within our low-cost home ownership programme—in other words, for building for sale, improvement for sale, shared ownership and homesteading.
A key financial point is that the local authority's guarantee will not—I stress this—score as public expenditure unless the guarantee is invoked, which will happen in only a small minority of cases. Both schemes hold out the prospect of extending home ownership to

many new, first-time buyers, by using private mortgage finance rather than public mortgage finance. Both mean additional low-cost homes for people who want to buy, without requiring additional public expenditure, and both show that the Government are successful and positively bringing in private finance to offset the reductions in public expenditure.

Mr. Heffer: How many of the 2½ million unemployed will be in that category?

Mr. Stanley: This provides a means of bringing back into use some of the low-cost homes, far too many of which are empty, not least in the hon. Gentleman's city.
Before I leave the question of public expenditure I should like to say a few words about capital receipts. We have heard a number of complaints from hon. Members about insufficient HIP allocations for their own authorities. I remind the House that from 1 April new rules apply, under which local authorities will be able to supplement their HIP allocations with the use of capital receipts.
Opposition Members have a simple remedy in their own hands if they think that their allocation is not sufficient. They should urge their councils to maximise their capital receipts, to get on with the sale of the many acres of local authority land that have been lying idle for far too long, and to get on with the sale of council houses to tenants, who are bursting to buy them and who are becoming increasingly frustrated by the delay.
Yet, surprisingly, the advice from the Opposition Front Bench has been very different. Far from encouraging local authorities to maximise capital receipts, the Opposition Front Bench has suggested that they should try to go slow. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said at the Labour Party local government conference last year:
I hope that no Labour councils will anticipate its"—the Housing Bills—
passage by preparing to sell council houses before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
That was the worst possible advice. In effect, the right hon. Gentleman was telling local authorities "Delay selling council houses, even if it means that you will have less to spend on housing next year as a result of that delay".

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Mr. Douglas-Mann rose—

Mr. Clinton Davis: Mr. Clinton Davis rose—

Mr. Stanley: We have heard a great deal about Government spending cuts. We heard far too little in the debate about self-imposed cuts by Labour councils that have not got on with maximising capital receipts.
I give way to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: To what extent do the HIP allocations assume capital receipts? To what extent do they assume a level of council house sales of 120,000, which the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well will not be achieved? Does the hon. Gentleman accept the assessment of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that instead of £413 million, which he had assumed, the most that is likely to be achieved is £300 million, so that his own figures are completely false?

Mr. Stanley: I do not accept that at all. The HIP allocations were made only on an assumption about the


receipts that would arise in the course of the financial year 1981–82. In addition, local authorities can use their accumulated unspent capital receipts as at 1 April. If hon. Members want to know what the possibilities are they should look at those authorities that have understood the new situation and that have taken advantage of it. I shall use the example of Eastbourne district council. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members should greet "Eastbourne" with such derision. It is one of the focal points of our national life. Eastbourne has the great good fortune to be represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). As is well known, my hon. Friend has a most healthy distaste for the retention of unwanted assets in the public sector. It will come as no great surprise to those on the Government Benches to know that Eastbourne district council will be able to make some addition to housing expenditure next year. That addition will be represented by a sum based on its accumulated gross capital receipts, which total £7,696.000. Many Labour-controlled councils must wish that they had followed the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne rather than that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
I turn to what the Government are doing to assist those who want to purchase at a low cost. There is no doubt that a great many of those in rented accommodation, or who are waiting for such accommodation, are willing and able to buy if low-cost home ownership opportunities can be made available to them.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that the response to our low-cost home ownership programme is very encouraging. About 60 councils are making land sales to private builders for starter home schemes. There are 96 councils with starter homes schemes on their own land and 23 councils with shared ownership schemes. There are 47 councils with improvement for sale schemes, and 51 councils are making sales of unimproved homes for first-time buyers. I am glad to say that the message of our low-cost home ownership programme is beginning to spread into some pretty strange quarters.
For example, I never thought that I would live to see the day when Manchester city council would come to embrace homesteading, but it has happened. Recently, we invited bills from local authorities that wished to take part in our homesteading programme. That programme was pioneered by the Conservative-controlled GLC. We received a bid from Manchester. That bid was very necessary if Manchester was to deal with the 1,869 dwellings that had been vacant for more than a year. We have been able to make an allocation to Manchester for homesteading. I can think of no better way for Manchester city council to celebrate the promotion of the right hon. Member for Ardwick to the Shadow Cabinet than by adopting some thorough-going Conservative housing policies. They are much needed.
Several of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) and for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) raised the subject of the right to buy. I corrobate what my hon. Friends have said. Delays in certain local authorities give rise to concern. I remind the House that if a tenant submits an application to buy his house, he is entitled by law to receive a response from the council within either four or eight weeks. In some Labour-controlled authorities tenants have not received a response within the statutory period.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Ardwick will make his position unambiguously clear. Almost exactly a year ago, the right hon. Gentleman gave a clear public undertaking. In the Standing Committee he said:
We have made clear—our party conference passed a resolution to this effect—that any opposition to the Act must be conducted within the law.
I now ask the right hon. Member for Ardwick to confirm that it is still the view of the Opposition that any opposition to the right to buy should be within the law, and to repudiate those Labour authorities which clearly are in breach of their statutory obligations to their tenants.

Mr. Kaufman: If the Minister has any evidence that Labour authorities or other authorities are not carrying out their statutory duty, he has the opportunity to use section 23 of the Act to deal with them. Therefore, let him say whether he has any examples of the use of section 23 that he wants to employ.

Mr. Stanley: It is very significant that the right hon. Gentleman ducks the question. He has given a clear undertaking that the Labour Party will countenance opposition to the right to buy only if it is within the law. We shall hold him to that statement.
I now say a word about the private rented sector. We have heard a great deal about the shortage of rented accommodation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) that it is entirely possible to make significantly greater use of the private rented sector than we have been able to do up to now. The private sector can make a significantly greater contribution and would have been making it had it not been for the fact that for years and years the Labour Party has been insufficiently concerned about the availability of rented accommodation and far too concerned about carrying on its vendetta against the private landlord.
The Government have now taken some significant steps in the Housing Act. We have made it much easier for home owners to sublet, and it is significant that we have had a very substantial response. Certainly I do not dismiss the booklets which my Department has published to explain people's very important new rights in the legislation. The demand we have had for those booklets on the right to buy, the tenant's charter and the other aspects of the Housing Act are indicative of the very real interest that individuals have in exercising their new rights under the legislation.
We have made it much easier for people to let their homes when they have to leave them temporarily, for example, to go abroad. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe that we have made it easier for those with retirement homes to let their homes temporarily. We have made it much easier for Servicemen to let their homes temporarily if they are serving overseas. We have given all public sector tenants a statutory right to sublet and to take in lodgers. We have created the new system of assured tenancies.
I am looking forward next month to opening the first assured tenancy in Tower Hamlets, carried out by the Abbey National building society. I take this opportunity to announce that my right hon. Friend has just approved an application from a leading national house builder, Wates Limited, to carry out assured tenancies as well. In a variety of ways we have sought materially to improve the availability of rented accommodation in the private sector.
I also want to refer to shorthold. The right hon. Member for Ardwick should be aware that we are begining to get


clear evidence that shorthold tenancies are being withheld simply on the strength of the repeal commitment which has been made by the Opposition.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick has been totally consistent. He made it clear during the Standing Committee proceedings on the Housing Bill that he would rather dwellings were left empty than let on shorthold. I can assure him that dwellings are now being left empty rather than being let on shorthold, and they are being left empty because of him.
I want to read to the House a letter which we have received from a solicitor in the West Country. I think that this is all too characteristic:
Under the Housing Act 1980 'shorthold' tenancies may now be created, giving the landlord the right to obtain possession on the expiration of the term of the tenancy. The trouble is that Her Majesty's Opposition has already said that if it returns to power at the next General Election it will repeal this part of the Act. What do landlords do in such cases and how is one supposed to advise them? It seems that the best advice is still 'Don't'.

Mr. Walter Harrison: Mr. Walter Harrison (Wakefield) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have two people at the Dispatch Box at once.

Mr. Walter Harrison: Mr. Walter Harrison rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 311.

Division No. 68]
[10. pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard


Adams, Allen
Cook, Robin F.


Allaun, Frank
Cowans, Harry


Alton, David
Cox,T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Anderson, Donald
Craigen,J. M.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crowther, J.S.


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, G.(lslingtonS)


Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)
Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dalyell, Tam


Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)
Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, T. (B 'ham, Stechf'd)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Deakins, Eric


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bradley, Tom
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Ron (E'burgh,Leith)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Dubs, Alfred


Callaghan,Jim (Midd't'namp;P)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell, Ian
Dunn, James A.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunnett, Jack


Canavan, Dennis
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Cant, R. B.
Eastham, Ken


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, R.(W'hampt'nSE)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)


Cartwright, John
Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
English, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Cohen, Stanley
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Coleman,Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Concannon, Rt Hon J.D.
Ewing, Harry



Field, Frank
Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)


Fitch, Alan
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)


Fitt, Gerard
Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)


Flannery, Martin
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Fletcher,Raymond (llkesfon)
Maxton, John


Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, lan


Forrester, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foster, Derek
Miller, Dr M.S. (EKilbride)


Foulkes, George
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)


Fraser, J.(Lamb'th,N'w'd)
Mitchell, R.C.(Sotonltchen)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Garrett, John(NorwichS)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


George, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Newens, Stanley


Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Gourlay, Harry
O'Halloran, Michael


Graham, Ted
O'Neill, Martin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grant, John (IslingtonC)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hamilton,James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Park, George


Hardy, Peter
Parker, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Pavitt, Laurie


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pendry, Tom


Haynes, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Holland, S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)
Race, Reg


HomeRobertson, John
Radice, Giles


Homewood, William
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson, George


Janner, HonGreville
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


John, Brynmor
Rooker, J.W.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ryman, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Kerr, Russell
Sever, John


Kilfedder, James A.
Sheerman, Barry


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kinnock, Neil
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lambie, David
Short, Mrs Renée


Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Leighton, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, MissJoan
Snape, Peter


Lewis,Arthur(N'ham NW)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Litherland, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Mabon, Rt Hon DrJ. Dickson
Stoddart, David


McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


McDonald, DrOonagh
Strang, Gavin


McElhone, Frank
Straw, Jack


McGuire, Michael (lnce)
Summerskill, HonDrShirley


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey(Abertillery)


Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McNally, Thomas
Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)


Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Marks, Kenneth
Tilley, John


Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.






Wainwright, E.(DearneV)
Williams, SirT.(W'ton)


Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Watkins.David
Wilson, Rt Hon SirH.(H'ton)


Weetch.Ken
Wilson, William (C'trySE)


Wellbeloved,James
Winnick, David


Welsh, Michael
Woolmer.Kenneth


White, Frank R.
Wrigglesworth, lan


White, J.(G'gow Pollok)
Young, David (BoltonE)


Whitehead.Phillip



Whitlock, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. James Tinn and


Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
 Mr. George Morton.


NOES


Adley, Robert
duCann, Rt Hon Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Alison, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N.(P'broke)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Emery, Peter


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Eyre, Reginald


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Faith, MrsSheila


Banks, Robert
Farr, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bell, Sir Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Fisher, SirNigel


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles


Best.Keith
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bevan, DavidGilroy
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, RtHon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison.John
Fox, Marcus


Blackburn, John
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Boscawen, HonRobert
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Bowden, Andrew
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Braine, SirBernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan


Brinton, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Brotherton, Michael
Gorst, John


Brown, M.(Briggand Scun)
Gow, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gray, Hamish


Buck, Antony
Greenway, Harry


Budgen, Nick
Grieve, Percy


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'thN)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hamilton, HonA.


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hamilton, Michael(sailbury)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hampson, DrKeith


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John


Churchil, W.S.
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hastings, Stephen


Clark, SirW. (CroydonS)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Paul


Clegg, SirWalter
Hawksley, Warren


Colvin, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Cope, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Cormack, Patrick
Heddle, John


Corrie, John
Henderson, Barry


Costain, SirAlbert
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Hicks, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Crouch, David
Hill, James


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hooson, Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Hordern, Peter


Dover, Denshore
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey



Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Howell, Ralph(NNorfolk)
Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
 Parkinson, Cecil


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Parris, Matthew


Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)
 Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Patten, John(Oxford)


Jessel, Toby
Pattie, Geoffrey


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Jopling, Rt HonMichael
Percival, Sirlan


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Kaberry, SirDonald
Pink, R.Bonner


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
 Pollock, Alexander


Kershaw, Anthony
Porter, Barry


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kitson, SirTimothy
Price, SirDavid(Eastleigh)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Proctor, K. Harvey


Knox, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francs


Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy


Lang, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Langford-Holt, SirJohn
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Latham, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert


Lee, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Julian


Lester Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lloyd, Ian (Havant amp; W'loo)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lyell, Nicholas
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh


McCusker, H.
Rost, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, John (Argyll)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Scott, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Major, John
Shepherd, Richard


Marland, Paul
Shersby, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Silvester, Fred


MarshallMichael(Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mates, Michael
Smith, Dudley


Mather, Carol
Speller, Tony


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Spence, John


Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sproat, lam


Mayhew, Patrick
Squire, Robin


Mellor, David
Stainton, Keith


Meyer, SirAnthony
Stanbrook, lvor


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stanley, John


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Peter (WestDevon)
Stevens, Martin


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Moate, Roger
Stokes, John


Molyneaux, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Monro, Hector
Tapsell, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert(CroydonNW)


Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)


Morgan, Geraint
Tebbit, Norman


Morris, M.(N'hamptonS)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mudd, David
Thompson, Donald


Murphy, Christopher
Thorne, Neil(llfordSouth)


Myles, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)


Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Tony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nott, RtHon John
Vaughan, DrGerard


Onslow, Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Waddington, David


Osborn, John
Wakeham, John






Walker, B. (Perth)
Wickenden, Keith


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Wiggin, Jerry


Wall, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Waller, Gary
Williams,D. (Montgomery)


Walters, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Warren, Kenneth
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Watson, John



Wells, John(Maidstone)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Whitelaw, RtHon William

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the measures the Government are taking to restore a sound economy, to make better use of the existing housing stock, to revive the private rented sector, to provide a new charter of rights for public sector tenants, and to extend home ownership more widely than ever before."

Northern Ireland (Legal Aid)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
The order consolidates the law relating to legal aid, advice and assistance. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills considered the matter on 4 February and reported its opinion that it is pure consolidation and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Weights and Measures)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to consolidate the enactments relating to weights and measures. It reproduces the existing laws without change. It may help the House to know that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills considered the order on 4 February and reported its opinion that it is pure consolidation and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

All-night Parties

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mrs. Jill Knight: I have sought this debate because of a West Indian party which took place in my constituency over the Christmas holidays. It began on 22 December, the Sunday before Christmas, and continued until 2 January, a period of 11 days. During that time, the harassment, noise and fear that my constituents had to endure was utterly intolerable. The nights were the worst.
The form was that people would start to arrive at about 9 pm from all parts of Birmingham but also from London, Bristol and the North. They came in cars and in vans, usually with hi-fi equipment blasting out reggae music from their transport, horns blaring as they cruised up and down the road looking for parking places. That went on all night, until 7.30 in the morning, and it went on every night.
I have visited that street many times and have seen the house at which these parties took place. It is a very small house. On the ground floor is just one window and the front door. Above is just one large window and a very tiny window over the door. It is a terraced inner-city house. Inside that house were crammed 200 people at any one time, although there was a good deal of coming and going.
Those who attended paid £2 to go in. There is plenty of evidence from people who saw the money changing


hands. I do not think that much alcohol was drunk, although one West Indian who was at the party said that some was drunk. However, many observers say that marijuana was being smoked—and quite a quantity, because the smell outside was unmistakable.
The noise of the disco troubled the near-neighbours, as well it might, because the sound was turned up very high, but it was the rowdy behaviour in the street that was the main problem. There was a seething mass of people, 99 per cent. of whom were of the Rastafarian type, who can look a little frightening. Certainly their numbers were frightening.
The noise these people made was terrifying. They shouted at each other. One resident who tried to park his car in a space which was apparently reserved for a party-goer was intimidated and very frightened. Another of my constituents who went to ask whether the noise could please be turned down a little had a knife pulled on him. No doubt thinking that discretion was the better part of valour, he ran away with the man with the knife after him and only just got inside his house in time, where he slammed and bolted the door. He was very frightened.
Unfortunately, throughout all this time—11 days—nothing at all was done for my constituents.
The police were contacted many times, but they would do nothing. A petition signed by 40 of the residents of the street was taken to the police station. Both black and white people signed the petition because they wanted a bit of peace and quiet. But the police refused to accept the petition, so it was sent to them by recorded mail delivery.
The police were technically right. The law gives them no powers to stop noisy parties in private houses. In this case there was clear evidence of cannabis smoking and of the fact that people were paying to go in, and there was no licence to run such a party in the house. There were also knife threats being made. One might have thought that all this would be sufficient to get the police interested. Unfortunately, they stuck to their view that it was not their job. They stated that the law says that it is the job of the environment health officer of the local council to deal with such parties.

Sir Ronald Bell: If there is no music and dancing licence for the house, and money is being paid for admission, is it not a matter for the police rather than for the Department of the Environment?

Mrs. Knight: I am describing exactly what happened on this disastrous occasion for my constituents. My hon. and learned Friend has a great knowledge of the law and I am sure that he is right.
It is all very well to say that the environmental health officer is the person who should deal with the matter, but the local council offices were shut tighter than a drum throughout Christmas and on to the new year. I have found out since that there was an Ansafone service technically operating which possibly might have been able to produce the right answer for my constituents, but unfortunately they did not know that. West Indian leaders were contacted. It should be stated that sometimes they are extremely helpful in stopping these parties, but on this occasion it did not work.
Finally, the police came, with fairly disastrous results. They came in some force, with police cars. The police cars were attacked by mobs of West Indian youths and stoned very severely. Several of the police were slightly injured.

One policeman had to be taken to hospital with a serious head injury. He had to have 12 stitches in his head. In view of this fearsome attack on the police, it is no wonder that my poor constituents were so frightened.
It is because I believe that such incidents are totally intolerable that I have sought this debate. I have since discovered that such parties are by no means confined to my area. Since the case was publicised, I have received scores of letters indicating that the problem of all-night parties, sometimes continuing over many days or over the whole weekend, is common all over the country. Hon. Members will be well aware of the tragic consequences of a similar party at Deptford only two or three weeks ago.
I gather that these parties are called shebeens, and I understand that they are very common. I had a letter from the environmental health officer of Southampton. He tells me that shebeens are not merely unlicensed houses selling drink but are also associated with prostitution and drugs as well as amplified music and general revelry. Residents are disturbed, mainly at weekends, by shebeens starting about 11 pm and not ending until 5 am or 6 am. Stories of alarm clocks being vibrated off bedside tables in contiguous houses, of people having to go to relatives to sleep, and of elderly people in tears, are not uncommon, according to that environmental health officer.
I must be frank and voice my fears that because of the race connotation these parties are not treated as they would be if the persons concerned were of a different race. If we tried to cram 200 people into a very small house, charged them £2 a head for entry, smoked marijuana and played music all night, the authorities would be down on us like a ton of bricks.

Sir Ronald Bell: Quite right.

Mrs. Knight: Of course. I have no doubt that anyone who complains as I am doing runs the risk of being called a racist. My contention has nothing to do with race. All persons living in this land have a right to equal blame or equal protection under the law. No one, whatever his colour, has a right to make life unbearable for his neighbours. That is why I am asking my hon. Friend for action.
I do not seek to censure all parties. There are many parties that we all enjoy and to which neighbours do not object. I have in mind the ordinary birthday parties, 21st birthday celebrations and Christmas parties. Surely it is clear that there is a definable line between that sort of party and parties that go on and on with no consideration for the neighbours. I am asking for more co-operation between the police and the environmental departments of local authorities.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend need not be too worried about being classified as a racist. Part of the tragedy of these sorts of party is that they take place in an environment in which a large mass of the working population lives. There are some who have to get up extremely early each morning to go to work. They are being prevented from getting a good night's sleep. What may be in place in the sunny Caribbean may not be in place in my hon. Friend's constituency or in Deptford. This is a tragedy for the British people and for those whom I have mentioned specifically. My hon. Friend need have no fear that anyone will classify her or any of her colleagues as racist.

Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend displays a real understanding of exactly what I am talking about. I had no idea of the spread of the problem. It is untenable that the situation should be allowed to continue when we bear in mind, for example, those who have to get up early in the morning to go to work.
There are some authorities—the London borough of Brent is one example—that have regular party patrols by environmental health officers. They have to have back-up from the police. If that can be done in Brent, why cannot it be done in other places where a similar problem exists? Why cannot there be uniformity of protection?
A prohibition order was placed on the house in Stirling Road, Edgbaston, where the party took place. That will give peace for a time. However, the process of serving enforcement orders in these cases is far from simple. If one has managed to serve such a notice, revisits and finds that there is non-compliance although the details on the notice are still valid, I am told that there is a tremendous problem in getting supportive evidence at the magistrates' court hearing. I am told that for shebeens it is invariably impossible to find witnesses to give court evidence.
Witnesses will not come forward because they are afraid—I consider this to be unacceptable—of retaliation in the form of having their cars scratched, their windscreens broken, their tyres slashed, or worse. It horrifies me that people should be in fear in our land.
I hope that the Minister will agree that this situation cannot be allowed to continue. There are other penalties that spring to mind. There are, for instance, powers to seize disco equipment. That might be possible on the authority of the environmental officer or perhaps that of a justice of the peace if either is satisfied that the noise amounted to a nuisance under the law, and after giving those running the equipment a warning.
I remind my hon. Friend that there is a legal precedent for that sort of action. Fishing gear is impounded if there has been illegal fishing in Britain's coastal waters. Of course, it would be much more dangerous to try to move the disco equipment than to try to move the fishing equipment. This is where I think that there is a real need for the police to be involved.
I had a great deal of trouble finding out exactly what happened during that terrible party in my constituency. The reason why I had such a job to find out was that people were afraid. They would not come forward to talk to me when I was first in the street and others could see that I was there. The doors were shut tight. But I received little messages asking me to call when nobody was there or to come back after dark, and bit by bit, I found out exactly what happened.
Is it not a terrible thing that in our country people should be afraid to come forward and defend themselves with evidence? Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue.
It must be stated that there will be a serious decline in race relations if that situation continues, because people are beginning to think "It is all right for that group, because nobody will touch them". That must have a very bad effect upon race relations, and eventually it will have a knock-on effect which could be very dangerous indeed.
Whether we should be talking about greater cooperation between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, about greater involvement of the West Indian leaders themselves, asking them for their help, or about wider use of party patrols or any of the other

possibilities that come to mind is for the Minister to decide. But I hope that he will agree that the case I have made cries out for action.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend talked quite rightly about fear of the law, and of knifing or of intimidation, by neighbours. Does she agree that much of the fear is that people are afraid to come forward because they may be reported to the Commission for Racial Equality? This shows how society has gone completely out of balance. One of the greatest fears of people who will not come forward to give evidence is, as she has found, the fear of being cast in the role that she mentioned—that of a racist. They are frightened about the law, biased as it is in favour of the Commission for Racial Equality.

Mrs. Knight: That may well be another reason for such people being apprehensive and indeed fearful. I may add that I myself received an unsigned threatening letter from the West Indian community that if I took the matter any further I should be very sorry. None the less, it seems to me to be my duty to do so on behalf of my constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel that I have made a case for action.

Sir Ronald Bell: I shall take just one minute or so from my hon. Friend the Minister, as I am sure he has enough time. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has done a great service in raising this matter, because it is one which causes great anxiety. I wish to say briefly to the Minister that there seems to be a great gap here. He has come to answer the debate tonight because there are clearly environmental considerations. But it should not be so difficult to get some kind of redress when these things happen. One should not have to try to chase around some kind of departmental responsibility. This is becoming rather frequent. Other kinds of harassment and interference in people's lives are also becoming far more common as a result of the massive immigration that has taken place. There really ought to be some kind of Government responsibility beyond what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, with the best will in the world, typifies here tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I echo the comments of my hon. and leaned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for raising this matter,, because I know that it has caused concern to a great many people, probably on both sides of the House, as it was clearly an incident of considerable scale.
In the course of her remarks, my hon. Friend rightly covered the various elements which go to make this particular incident. She will be the first to appreciate that the terms in which she has framed this Adjournment motion refer primarily to
departmental advice to local authorities on control of nuisance arising from all-night parties.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too disappointed if I say that it is not really within my compass to comment on aspects of, say, the responsibility of the Home Office for actions in connection with the police or, indeed, actions in connection with racial equality and local community services. As she will know, there are certain


aspects of this case which, I believe, will shortly come before the courts. Therefore, there is a difficulty about proceeding too far into the details of what took place.
What my hon. Friend has raised, and what I must address myself to, is the question of the nuisance caused within those terms which apply to the Department of the Environment. Primarily, it was the night noise nuisance over this considerable time which gave rise to such an unpleasant experience for my hon. Friend's constituents.
Obviously, we in the Department of the Environment have policies on noise as a source of nuisance. We recognise that at worst it can cause great distress and extreme annoyance. While I, like every other hon. Member present, enjoy a good party, I also value sleep. A party of the kind described by my hon. Friend must have been a most substantial and persistent nuisance. That was a fair point for her to make.
It is generally a matter—I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this—for local authorities. That is why the motion correctly refers to what local authorities can or cannot do about this aspect of the nuisance.
We are considering issuing codes of practice under section 71 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974—which is the basis for taking action in relation to noise as a source of pollution—which would offer guidance on minimising noise. As these codes are in preparation, and as they cover a number of subjects including some things which are intrusive, such as ice cream van chimes, we shall consider whether we can give useful advice in relation to all-night parties. My hon. Friend has raised this matter at an appropriate point. It is right that we should look at it to see whether we can produce some guidance on how to deal with it.
I am conscious of the difficulties of offering advice on a subject such as this, on which there are so many variable factors—the type of party, the extent, the type of house, the character of the neighbourhood, and so on. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be among the first, as she suggested, to avoid the implication that it is the task of the Government to be a killjoy in respect of the regulation of parties. But the nuisance which is so clearly established in this kind of persistent intrusion is something on which we ought to take some specific action.
The powers to deal with this are within the Control of Pollution Act, and they rest with the local authority. Some authorities such as Brent, Haringey and Lewisham operate party patrols. I understand that one authority—I think that it is Lewisham—has extremely close and good working relations with the police in the handling of all-night parties. Under agreed arrangements, the local authority has an environmental health officer on duty every Saturday night from 10 pm to 6 am on Sunday morning. Complaints are usually first received by the police who themselves investigate to see whether they can deal with the problem under their own powers which cover, for example, unruly behaviour, the possibility of a breach of the peace or, indeed, unlicensed drinking. If the nuisance is solely a noise one, the police will accompany the local authority duty officer to the party in question. From there onwards, the matter can be handled within the terms and provisions of the Control of Pollution Act. If the nuisance continues, they can return after an hour or so and serve an instant notice to ensure that it is contained.
Another local authority, Brent, also operates a party patrol system in close liaison with the police. That has also worked most successfully. There again, duty officers from

the local authority are there every Saturday to Sunday, 11 pm to 5 am, and likewise they carry out a patrol in areas where there have been difficulties. On the whole, local authorities in those areas are able to respond quickly and efficiently to a local problem by using their wisdom and good sense.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend saying that the police cannot act without first some nuisance being reported to them by the environmental health officer concerned, and that they have no power to act unless they hear from him or her in the first place?

Mr. Shaw: The usual procedure is for a complaint to be made to the police from individual citizens. There is a course in law for the citizen to take a person to court under common law to establish that a nuisance has been created. But in terms of getting action, the report is investigated by the police with the environmental health officer concerned if the question of noise is the matter of the offence. That is where the law lies.

Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is an element of fear in these matters, and that it is a growing fear? It arises partly from what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, (Sir R. Bell) said about being taken to the Commission for Racial Equality, but also from the fear of retaliation. Regulations formulated without taking account of the new dimension into which we have moved are not always as effective as they should be, for the reasons that I have adduced.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend must recognise that what I cannot do in my response to this debate is to give her considered advice to the effect that the element of fear, which she suggests is part of the problem of obtaining evidence, and even of obtaining action, is something within the Department's control. It is not. We are dealing here with a social situation. I am prepared to believe that in certain circumstances fear becomes an element, but in terms of the law on noise abatement, the pollution to which my hon. Friend referred, and the action that local authorities can take—that is the basis of her Adjournment debate—the element of fear is not the matter for discussion. She has suggested that there are other elements, apart from the nuisance of noise which create and exacerbate the situation. That I understand. That is not what I am dealing with at the moment. I am concentrating on the power local authorities have to deal with the noise nuisance.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will my hon. Friend make representations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this question of fear should lead to an alteration of the law? I know that that is not within my hon. Friend's sphere, but will he make clear to my right hon. Friend that the people of England fear very much what is happening to them?

Mr. Shaw: I accept my hon. Friend's last point. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that.
In my discussions on this matter I discussed with the Home Office the elements involved here. Certainly, in the Birmingham case, as my hon. Friends made clear, the police were obviously substantially involved at the end of the proceedings. In some areas the individual local authorities have good relations with the community councils which provide voluntary assistance, for example,


in helping to monitor parties and activities of that kind. I was emphasising the position of the local authority in relation to the law.
Let me turn from the general to the specific and come to the position in Birmingham. The local authority there says that it liaises closely with the police and has an established set of procedures which operates between them and works very well. They suggest that parties of this kind are not as frequent as they may have been in other areas, and that this one in Stirling Road was very much an exception to the general pattern of behaviour. But in regard to the procedure in Birmingham, I am advised that when the police receive a complaint they will investigate and send a detailed report to the local authority on a special form that has been drawn up. A notice is never served during a party, because no party patrol is operating. There was some years ago. Nor is one served after the first such party held by an occupier. But when a second complaint and report about the same address is received from the police the local authority is prepared to serve a notice if necessary. All notices are authorised by the city environmental health officer, and officers have no delegated powers to issue notices.
Birmingham operates an Ansafone system—my hon. Friend referred to this—with officers on duty at weekends and throughout holiday periods. Birmingham has now altered its system of trying to identify the main occupier, and where there is multiple occupation it will attempt to serve notices on landlords and tenants and everyone who might be involved and have a responsibility. I accept that that does not provide my hon. Friend with the assurances that she wants in relation to this nuisance, but I am suggesting there has been some change in the procedures in Birmingham, and I have no doubt that the case she has raised here tonight will make it even more certain that action will be taken in the future.
Let me explain further where the individal member of the public stands in this. It is open to an individual member of the public to take up a case direct with the magistrates' court and complain to the magistrate as the occupier of premises affected by noise nuisance. A civil action for noise nuisance can be taken at common law.

The Queston having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.